User:KC1200/Lipocalin 1/Wickypears Peer Review

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing?
 * KC1200
 * Link to draft you're reviewing:
 * User:KC1200/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, the major sections are clear and bolded.
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
 * Yes, it adds new information that is not included in the original article.
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?
 * concise

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic?
 * Yes, I especially appreciate the added function section with new material.
 * Is the content added up-to-date?
 * yes, they added information that is up to date
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
 * No, the only section that isn't as pertinent is the history section, but I think it adds an important section to the overrall page for readers.
 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics?
 * I don't think so, its just new information added to a topic.

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral?
 * yes, good job
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
 * no
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
 * no, well balanced
 * Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?
 * no it is neutral statements

Sources and References
Guiding questions:


 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
 * yes resources are given
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
 * I believe so they gave 5 resources
 * citations are not correctly added yet though.
 * Are the sources current?
 * yes
 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible?
 * NA
 * Check a few links. Do they work?
 * links are working and good

Organization
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
 * yes, again very clear
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors?
 * no, any grammatical errors have been addressed are on my talk page.
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?
 * yes, I appreciate your sections

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


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic?
 * no, there are no images
 * Are images well-captioned? N/A
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations? NA
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way? NA

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?
 * there are only 5 sources listed, so I am not sure if it is representative of all available literature. It might be.
 * 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?
 * no, adding hyperlinks would be good.

Overall impressions
Guiding questions:


 * Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete?
 * What you have added is good.
 * What are the strengths of the content added?
 * I think the functions sections is the best, and adds a good amount to the article.
 * How can the content added be improved?
 * I think more could be added and an image would be really good to add to the overall article.