User:Eriicaayu/Hormone/Yonghhon 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? Eriicaayu
 * Link to draft you're reviewing: Hormone

Lead
Guiding questions:


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer? Yes.
 * 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? Yes, the Lead includes information that is not present in the article. For example, the biography of the people that discovered hormones was not included in the lead.
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? The Lead is slightly overly detailed, but this is justified because the topic is very broad.

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.

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral? Yes.
 * 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.
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? Yes.
 * Are the sources current? Yes.
 * Check a few links. Do they work? Yes.

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? No images were added.
 * Are images well-captioned? No images were added.
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations? No images were added.
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way? No images were added.

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? Yes.
 * 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? Yes.
 * Does the article link to other articles so it is more discoverable? Yes.

Overall impressions
Guiding questions:


 * Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete? The article was improved overall. More updated information was added and several outdated sources were replaced.
 * What are the strengths of the content added? Outdated sources were replaced, specific information were added to support previous information that did not have sufficient details, and additional information/applications about the topic was added.
 * How can the content added be improved? Content added could be a little more concise and re-evaluated to check if the information added is truly relevant to the overall topic and if it necessarily helps reader grasp a better understanding of the topic.

Overall evaluation
The content added was well thought out and well organized. Details were added to previous sections that were broad in their descriptions and definitions. Sources used were all recent and reliable. A little more thought could be put into whether additional sections really help the reader understand the topic "hormone" and make the overall article more concise.