User:Cassiepark/Allergy to Cats/Jtan4 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? (provide username) Cassiepark
 * Link to draft you're reviewing: MAIN ARTICLE Allergy to cats  SANDBOX ARTICLE User:Cassiepark/Allergy to Cats

Lead
Guiding questions:


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer? Yes, the intro sentence has been changed a bit.
 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic? Yes, the first sentence talks about what the entire article will be about.
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections? The Lead includes descriptions of most of the major sections; symptoms and allergens are briefly mentioned (the main points) I think a single sentence about coping with allergies in the Lead should suffice.
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? No, all the information mentioned in the lead is present in the article.
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? It is concise, but I feel that some scientific terms should be linked so people know what they can. Ex: glycoprotein and anaphylactic should have links.

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic? Yes, there is an immunology section added. This is an important topic to know.
 * Is the content added up-to-date? Yes, the literature is from 2018.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? No, the content belongs to the immunology section.

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral? Yes, there is no introduced bias.
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? No, there are no biased claims.
 * 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, but the section Cat sex and color is confusing. The second sentence talks about how a study showed cat color might have an impact. The third sentence negates the second sentence. If the section is about cat sex and color relating to allergies, is there a point in the second sentence?

Sources and References
Guiding questions:


 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? No, there is only one source of information for the immunology section.
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? Yes, it is an update on cat allergens.
 * Are the sources current? Yes it came out in 2018.
 * Check a few links. Do they work? They work.

Organization
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? Yes it is clear 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? Yes, the major topics are discussed briefly in the lad and are separated into their own categories.

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


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic? No, although I doubt images would be of much use.
 * Are images well-captioned? There are 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? Yes, htere is now an immunology section which is an important topic.
 * What are the strengths of the content added? There is now some information for immunity against cat allergies.
 * How can the content added be improved? Terms that are mentioned in the article should be linked. There are also a few sentences that are missing citations. Since immunology will be a new section, I think the Lead should have also been copied into the sandbox so the sentences can be revised to briefly talk about immunology.

Overall evaluation
The article is clear and easy to read. There are some things that should be added, such as links and citations. When the immunology section is added to the actual article, the Lead should be revised a bit to include this new section. Overall, the article is good.