User:Iggie7/Glucagonoma/Epaukner 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? Iggie7
 * Link to draft you're reviewing: User:Iggie7/sandbox

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? No
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? Concise

Lead evaluation
Lead article is well written and concise, hitting on all the main topics of the article without being too wordy. Updates were made appropriately.

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic? yes
 * Is the content added up-to-date? Somewhat, most data falls in the early 2000's range, but recent papers are present
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? No

Content evaluation
Content is relevant and well written. I think that perhaps trying to find more recent articles (like within the last 5 years) would help make your improvement to the article more firm.

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? Some could be updated
 * Check a few links. Do they work? yes

Sources and references evaluation
Again, a few more recent sources would solidify the changes you made to the article.

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

Organization evaluation
Well done! The flow of the article is logical and easy to understand. All language is professional and concise.

Images and Media (NOT APPLICABLE)
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 (NOT APPLICABLE)
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? yes
 * What are the strengths of the content added? The content is all backed up with pertinent articles and is incorporated well into paragraphs
 * How can the content added be improved? The only thing that struck me as an area of improvement is the source age.

Overall evaluation
Overall, this is a drastic improvement to the original article. Each statement is backed up with a citation. Content is clear, relevant, well written in professional language. All sources are appropriate, but I would like to see some newer sources, just for the sake of making the article appear as up to date as possible! Very well done. Thank you for your kind review! In response to your comments on source age, I do wish I could have used newer sources, but glucagonoma is so obscure that nobody seems to research it. -Iggie7