User:Eriicaayu/Hormone/Wschmidt2 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? Erica Yu
 * Link to draft you're reviewing: User:Eriicaayu/Hormone

Lead
Guiding questions:


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer?
 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?

Lead evaluation
The Lead does not seem to be edited as nothing was added or subtracted from it. The introductory sentence is very well done and perfectly sums up what a hormone is. While it outlines the content of the article, it does not briefly do it. It has long paragraphs that talk about it in more detail than is needed. Some of the information could even been made into separate sub-sections. Overall, the Lead contains a lot of good information, but a little overly detailed.

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic?
 * Is the content added up-to-date?
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?

Content evaluation
All content added is relevant and up-to-date. No obvious information seems to be missing, but I feel that the plant hormone section is a little unnecessary, but as long as you keep information on them to a minimum, it should be fine. There is a separate article just on plant hormones that should explain the minute details.

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral?
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
 * Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?

Tone and balance evaluation
The content added is neutral and doesn’t try and persuade the reader any which way. Nothing seems to be biased.

Sources and References
Guiding questions:


 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
 * Are the sources current?
 * Check a few links. Do they work?

Sources and references evaluation
Secondary sources are used thoroughly in the information added (mostly books and reviews). All sources are current and are good to use for the topic at hand. The links work as well.

Organization
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors?
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?

Organization evaluation
The content is pretty well written and the information that is there is clear. I didn’t notice any obvious spelling errors. Sections are well broken down and it is easy to follow along.

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


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic?
 * Are images well-captioned?
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations?
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way?

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?
 * What are the strengths of the content added?
 * How can the content added be improved?

Overall evaluation
I think the added information is very well written and organized. I do think the Lead needs improvement in terms of its conciseness. It is a little length and information can be used elsewhere. The content uses good sources and does a good job of summarizing the information.