User:EndlessSummer19/Thrombopoiesis/JBonz 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)
 * EndlessSummer19
 * Link to draft you're reviewing:
 * User:EndlessSummer19/Thrombopoiesis

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
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
 * Yes
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
 * No it does not
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?
 * It is concise and to the point, could be a little more detailed and less of a listing type.

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic?
 * Yes
 * Is the content added up-to-date?
 * Yes most of it is, some are a little old such as 2005 but not too bad
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
 * Not content missing, but I would like there to be more added
 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics?
 * Yes it does deal with equity gaps
 * It doesnt look to me like there is any underpresented topics

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral?
 * yes its related to the topic
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
 * No
 * 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?
 * Yes references are placed where needed, supporting the information provided
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
 * Yes
 * Are the sources current?
 * Yes only one old one (2005)
 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible?
 * yes could use a couple more
 * Check a few links. Do they work?
 * Yes they do

Organization
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
 * Yes, clear and concise
 * 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 they are

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


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic?
 * No images
 * Are images well-captioned?
 * No
 * 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?
 * N/A
 * How exhaustive is the list of sources? Does it accurately represent all available literature on the subject?
 * Yes
 * 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?
 * No
 * Does the article link to other articles so it is more discoverable?
 * In the sources yes, but no

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?
 * Very informative and straight to the point
 * How can the content added be improved?
 * I would just simply explain a little more in detail and allow more fluidity rather than it sounding like its listed

Overall evaluation
Interesting read and had a lot of useful information. I would just add a little detail in between certain sentences to allow better fluidity rather than it sounding like a list.