User:Hayleysmitty18/Liothyronine/Kelleytw 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? Hayleysmitty18
 * Link to draft you're reviewing: User:Hayleysmitty18/Liothyronine

Lead
Guiding questions:


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer? The lead has been updated to reflect the new content added
 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic? Briefly, but the lead includes an introductory sentence describing the article's topic
 * 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? n/a
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? The lead wasn't detailed enough

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic? Yes, the content added is relevant
 * Is the content added up-to-date? Content is up to date
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? No

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral? Yes, content added seems completely neutral
 * 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, though slightly incorrect citation formatting
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? Yes
 * Are the sources current? Sources used were current
 * Check a few links. Do they work? Yes, the links worked

Organization
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? Very easy to read and understand what author was conveying
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors? n/a
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? n/a (only 1 sentence)

Images and Media
Guiding questions: If your peer added images or media: No images or media added


 * 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: Not a new article


 * 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? No, but with greater detail and thorough research has the great potential
 * What are the strengths of the content added? Great use of a primary source and explaining in brief detail the role of liothyronine
 * How can the content added be improved? Properly cite sources correctly and expanding on further applied knowledge of the subject

Overall evaluation
Overall, the content added was very minimal and brief but was a quick synopsis to understand the importance of liothyronine. Going forward, author could have added more information describing the hormone more in depth; though this was a great start.