User:Kelleytw/Insulin-like growth factor 1/Hugheshayne 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? (provide username) - Kelleytw
 * Link to draft you're reviewing: Insulin-like growth factor 1

Lead
Guiding questions:


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer? - the lead was not updated.
 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic? - n/a
 * 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 and straight to the point.

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic?
 * Yes is it
 * 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 they work.

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, it was one section that was revised and additional information was added.

Images and Media
Guiding questions: If your peer added images or media --> no images were 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.


 * 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 it added some quality information to the "Mechanism of action" section of the article.
 * What are the strengths of the content added?
 * It provided a clearer mechanism of action of IGF-1R.
 * How can the content added be improved?
 * Simply adding more information could be beneficial. Overall the content added was well done.

Overall evaluation
Adding stronger information to back up the mechanism of action of the insulin life growth factor was good for the reader. By providing a clearer picture and making it easier to understand a complex process, it can help the reader better understand the topic at hand. Overall I am pleased with the information added and edited in the "Mechanism of action" section.