User:Bvass54/Trophic Hormone/Bvass54 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? Biologymajor4541
 * Link to draft you're reviewing:User:Biologymajor4541/sandbox

Lead
Guiding questions:


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer? Yes, it reflects what is added to the article.
 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic? yes, it explains the hormone and what it does.
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections? Yes, it talks about the hormones that it expanse on later.
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? Everything that is stated is in the article.
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? It is concise.

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic? Yes it is.
 * Is the content added up-to-date? Yes, from 2020.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? From what I can see, everything does belong.
 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics? No, it does not.

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral? Yes, it is neutral.
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? No claims seemed biased.
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? No viewpoints are overrepresented or underrepresented.
 * Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another? No, it does not.

Sources and References
Guiding questions:


 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? Yes.
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? I did not research this myself, but I do believe it does reflect this.
 * Are the sources current? Yes, from 2020.
 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible? Only one source so cant speak on this.
 * Check a few links. Do they work? Yes, it works, but it requires an account to see.

Organization
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? "...that affects the secretion of hormones from other glands that affect growth and nutrition." This part sounds confusing to me, but other than that I thought it was well- written.
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors? None that I can see.
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? It is well organized and reflects the major points of the topic.

Overall impressions
Guiding questions:


 * Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete? Yes, added more examples of trophic hormones.
 * What are the strengths of the content added? You did a good job at expanding on the topic. Kept the article mostly the same and expanded on it.
 * How can the content added be improved? Try to reword the first sentence. Reread it through to make sure everything sounds correct.