User:Dradtke17/Growth hormone in sports/SnuBru44 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? Dradtke17
 * Link to draft you're reviewing: User:Dradtke17/sandbox

Lead
Guiding questions:


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer? Yes it has
 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic? Yes it has
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections? No
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? Yes
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? Concise and to the point

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, only relevant content is present

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral? YES
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? NO- pretty neutral
 * 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? No citations
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? None
 * Are the sources current? None
 * Check a few links. Do they work? None

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? NO
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? YES

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


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic? None
 * Are images well-captioned? None
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations? None
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way? None

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

THIS ARTICLE IS NOT NEW


 * 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
 * What are the strengths of the content added? The references to the first descriptions of Growth Hormone was cool, a fun fact pulled me in and then I ended up googling more about GH.
 * How can the content added be improved? Need more content in general, and sources have to be added to ensure credibility.

Overall evaluation
It was a good start, I think more in depth content should be added on the tail end of what David already has. Adding sources would be a good start so readers can pan out from his article if they want to do more specific research on the subject.