User:Cassiepark/Allergy to Cats/Jamiechiu8 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?
 * Yes the lead has been updated and rewritten in a way that is easier to understand. As well as the over text is more neutral sounding.
 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?
 * Yes, by reading the introductory sentence the article topic is determined.
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
 * Yes, the lead mentions briefly about the sections that will be talked about.
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
 * The original article mentions about anaphylactic but does not present it in the article, the revised article removed it and now contains information that is present in the article.
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?
 * Lead is concise and straightforward. Contains a brief detail about each topic that will be talked about.

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic?
 * Yes, the content added was mainly to elaborate on the sub headings.
 * Is the content added up-to-date?
 * Content added seems up-to-date, since the referenced article was dated in 2018.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
 * No content missing.

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral?
 * New content added is neutral.
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
 * No, all the claims provided were mainly facts that stands true to the article.
 * 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, the content only states facts.

Sources and References
Guiding questions:


 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
 * Yes, the source is not a primary research.
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
 * There was only one source provided. Another source could have maybe helped to reflect the availability on the topic.
 * Are the sources current?
 * Yes, published in 2018.
 * Check a few links. Do they work?
 * Yes, the citation provided works.

Organization
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
 * Yes, it is clear and contains information that is easy to comprehend.
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors?
 * No grammatical errors were found.
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?
 * Yes, content added was added to the original headings.

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


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic?
 * The article does not include any images, as well as the sandbox draft.
 * Are images well-captioned?
 * Not applicable, no images found on the article.
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations?
 * Not applicable, no images found on the article.
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way?
 * Not applicable, no images found on the article.

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

Not a new article.


 * 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?
 * The content added has improved the overall quality and understanding of the article. Because I don't know too much about cat allergies, therefore some research would be needed in order to see if more information is needed. But overall, the article does seem more complete then from start and more clear.
 * What are the strengths of the content added?
 * Stronger details and explanation of the headings.
 * How can the content added be improved?
 * Content added can be improved by finding more secondary sources to add to the article.