User:Bilalabualrub/Agonist-antagonist/Jaselleee 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

 * Whose work are you reviewing? (Bilalabualrub)
 * Link to draft you're reviewing:User:Bilalabualrub/Agonist-antagonist

Lead
Guiding questions:


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer? yes
 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic? yes
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections? yes
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? yes
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? no, it is concise. The original article has very little detail.

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic? yes
 * Is the content added up-to-date? yes
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? no, everything belongs in article.

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral? for the most part, when the editor starts comparing opioids and agonist-antagonist there was a bit of bias there.
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? somewhat
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? no
 * Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another? no

Sources and References
Guiding questions:


 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? some of the content is backed up, there is a paragraph that need some references added to it.
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? the source provided does not have a link, I did copy and paste it and it is relevant to the topic.
 * Are the sources current? yes
 * Check a few links. Do they work? the links do not work

Organization
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? it is concise and easy to read
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors? no
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? well organized with example added

Images and Media
Guiding questions: If your peer added images or media


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic? no image
 * Are images well-captioned?no image
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations? no image
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way? no image

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? n/a
 * How exhaustive is the list of sources? Does it accurately represent all available literature on the subject? n/a
 * 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?n/a
 * Does the article link to other articles so it is more discoverable? n/a

Overall impressions
Guiding questions:


 * Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete? yes, it made the article more complete
 * What are the strengths of the content added? some strengths were that the editor added examples of the agonist-antagonist and extra background information
 * How can the content added be improved? the content can be improved by adding a few more sources

Overall evaluation:
The overall evaluation of the article was good, athough there needed to be more sources to see if the information provided was correct and reliable. I do like how the editor added extra background information on the topic because the original article did not have much information. The edits the author added did make the article more informative.