User:Audrickya29/Transdermal patch/Leroyjoenoes Peer Review

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing?

Audrick Yang


 * Link to draft you're reviewing
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Audrickya29/Transdermal_patch?preload=Template%3ADashboard.wikiedu.org_draft_template


 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)
 * Transdermal patch

Evaluate the drafted changes
Guiding questions:


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer?
 * Yes. Lead is updated.
 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?
 * Yes. Lead is include an introductory sentence.
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
 * No. the Lead does not include a brief description of the article’s major sections.
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
 * No. The Lead does not include information that is not present in the article.
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?
 * The Lead is good.

Content

Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic?
 * The content added to the topic is relevant.
 * Is the content added up-to-date?
 * The content added is up-to-date.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
 * Too much information on history of the technology
 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics?
 * No, the article does not deal with it.

Tone and Balance

Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral?
 * Yes, the content is neutral.
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
 * No biased claims appear.
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
 * No biased viewpoints appear.
 * Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?
 * No persuasion content can be found.

Sources and References

Guiding questions:


 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
 * Yes. They are backed by good and reliable secondary source.
 * Does the content accurately reflect what the cited sources say? (You'll need to refer to the sources to check this.)
 * Not yet. The sources are not cited yet for now.
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
 * Yes. They cover the main part of the page.
 * Are the sources current?
 * The sources are mostly current.
 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible?
 * Yes. They have diverse authors.
 * Are there better sources available, such as peer-reviewed articles in place of news coverage or random websites? (You may need to do some digging to answer this.)
 * No, the article is peer-reviewed article and has been cited by a lot of people.
 * Check a few links. Do they work?
 * Yes. They work.

Organization

Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
 * The content is concise, clear, and easy to read.
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors?
 * No, i think mostly are good with little to no errors.
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?
 * Yes, they are well-organized and broken down to simpler sections.

Images and Media

Guiding questions: If your peer added images or media


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic?
 * Yes, the article have 2 images.
 * Are images well-captioned?
 * Yes, however they could be added more.
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations?
 * No, i think the images are available on wikipedia,
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way?
 * Yes. they images are visually appealing.

Overall impressions

Guiding questions:


 * Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete?
 * Yes. I think it is now more complete and can be a starting point for understanding the topic.
 * What are the strengths of the content added?
 * The strength is that the content is very well organized and have good citations.
 * How can the content added be improved?
 * I think additional caption and citation is important for this.