User:Bchurst/Radioactive iodine uptake test/Shadowknight1109 Peer Review

Peer review
This is where you will complete your peer review exercise. Please use the following template to fill out your review.

General info
Im reviewing Bchurst's work on a radioactive iodine uptake test.

User:Bchurst/Radioactive iodine uptake test

Lead evaluation
The content is talking about how the test is performed but it doesn't really add any new information that wasn't already stated.

Content evaluation
The content is relevant to the topic and up to date. There is no bias or personal opinions involved.

Tone and balance evaluation
The content is neutral with no attempts to persuade the reader otherwise. Absolutely no bias or opinions stated anywhere.

Sources and References
Guiding questions:

Sources and references evaluation
The user did not include links/citations so you'll have to copy and paste if you want to go to the source. However the sources are current and seem like good secondary sources of information.

Organization
Organization evaluation

The organization is clear and concise with minor grammatical errors however it doesn't flow very well. There could have been better word choice to make it easier to read.

Images and media evaluation
There was no added images or media.

For New Articles Only
If the draft you're reviewing is a new article, consider the following in addition to the above.


 * Does the article meet Wikipedia's Notability requirements - i.e. Is the article supported by 2-3 reliable secondary sources independent of the subject?
 * How exhaustive is the list of sources? Does it accurately represent all available literature on the subject?
 * Does the article follow the patterns of other similar articles - i.e. contain any necessary infoboxes, section headings, and any other features contained within similar articles?
 * Does the article link to other articles so it is more discoverable?

Overall evaluation
The added content really just restated what was already said In the article and did not improve the quality of the article. The article is just about as complete now as it was before and new content should be added to improve the article.