User:Cassiepark/Allergy to Cats/Bio10bspk 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? Cassiepark
 * Link to draft you're reviewing: User:Cassiepark/Allergy to Cats

Lead
Guiding questions:


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer?
 * The new content was added to sections that are not directly alluded to by the lead to begin with. The group has made an effort to edit the lead to include mentions of the existing sections, like mentioning allergy shots.
 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?
 * I thought the original introductory sentence was more fitting as a first sentence. The group has done a good job of adding to the lead paragraph and including a citation, but there is no citation for the second half of the paragraph.
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
 * I think the lead does this sufficiently.
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
 * No
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?
 * I think the length and the level of detail are both acceptable.

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic?
 * Yes, the allergy shot additions are relevant and appropriate additions to a scant section.
 * Is the content added up-to-date?
 * Yes, the citation is from a source published in 2018.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
 * I think the group picked an appropriate section to add to because the section about coping with allergies was very scant especially in comparison to the section on hypoallergenic cats. It might be worth asking whether the hypoallergenic cat section should be its own page, although that might be outside of the scope of this activity.

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral?
 * Yes
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
 * The end of the original lead seemed very biased and has been improved by the group.
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
 * I thought the section hypoallergenic cats was very large, however, the topic does not have a page of its own, making it relevant to this topic.
 * 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?
 * I thought the end of the lead seemed to be missing a citation.
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
 * There is only one source suggested by the group. They might consider citing their additions from a variety of sources.
 * Are the sources current?
 * The source suggested by the group is current. The rest of the sources on the page are very old. 1991, 1997. The most current one seemed to be 2011. The group might consider updating some sources.
 * Check a few links. Do they work?
 * The few links I checked worked.

Organization
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
 * Yes
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors?
 * Yes, there is an error in the lead: Hypoallergenic cats are another solution for individuals who want to pets without the allergic consequences.
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?
 * Yes, it has been added to existing sections that are well organized.

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


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic?
 * The original article has no images and the group did not add images either. They may consider adding relevant images to the article. This may be possible in describing the allergens. This may also be possible in the hypoallergenic cats section.
 * Are images well-captioned?
 * No images
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations?
 * No images
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way?
 * No images

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 impressions
Guiding questions:


 * Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete?
 * I think the group made the right choice to add to the coping section, but they may consider adding to more of the coping section than just the shots and the one sentence to bathing. All of the subsections under the coping section are scant.
 * What are the strengths of the content added?
 * The strengths are that they have attempted to provide additional information that is scientific, current, and unbiased.
 * How can the content added be improved?
 * I like what's been added, I think more of the subsections can be improved with similar science-based additions.

Overall evaluation
Change the intro sentence. Add a citation to the end of the lead. Update some existing citations that are almost 30 years old. Add more to the subsections under coping with allergies.