User:Julia M Weaver/Basophilia/Sydneybelt33 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? Julia M Weaver
 * Link to draft you're reviewing: Basophilia

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, the Lead is concise, yet provides a good introduction to the subject
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections? No, but there is a sitemap that gives the major topics
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? No
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? It is concise

Lead evaluation
Julia did a good job on the lead. It was concise, and introduced the topics in a way that was unbiased and related to the rest of the article.

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic? Yes, the added content is relevant
 * Is the content added up-to-date? Yes, the content is up to date
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? I am not sure if there is content that is missing, but there is not content that doesn't belong.

Content evaluation
The content that was added was relevant, and expressed topics important to understanding basophilia.

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral? yes, the added content is 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

Tone and balance evaluation
All of the data was presented in a way that is fair, and does not lend itself to one viewpoint over another.

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

Sources and references evaluation
The sources that were used in this article were relevant and up to date

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
The article is organized well.

Images and Media - She did not add images
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 - This is not a new article
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? There was much more information added about the subject, which helped my understanding of the causes, diagnosis, and treatment.
 * How can the content added be improved? The article could be improved by adding history about the subject such as when it was discovered, who was it discovered by, and other information about ti

Overall evaluation
I think that Julia did a good job editing the article, and the changes that she made greatly improved the overall effectiveness of the article.