User:Kiara44D/Dopamine agonist/Tykerriagrey Peer Review

General info
(provide username) Kiara44D
 * Whose work are you reviewing?


 * Link to draft you're reviewing:Dopamine agonist
 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists):

Evaluate the drafted changes
(Compose a detailed peer review here, considering each of the key aspects listed above if it is relevant. Consider the guiding questions, and check out the examples of what feedback looks like.)

I really enjoyed reading this article. I love the structure of the article in which it was played out very well within itself. It was very neutral and was not leaning towards one specific side. I love how the article was also very informative. It gave you the history of the dopamine, it gave the examples of dopamine as well so you could have a better understanding. I did click on a couple links within the article, and the links did lead me to another source from the article. I do feel as if these links were also very helpful because it helped give you a definition and what some of the things about the article within itself meant. For instance, if I did not understand what the hydrogen bonding was about I could easily click the link, and it takes me to a article to explain it. I do love this feature within the article for that specific reason. The images that was displayed within the article does follow the Wikipedia regulations. They were very visually appealing in which you could see and try to understand the shape of it as well. I do feel as if the information in which was added by my classmate was very informative. The article was already informative within itself, and everything in which she added made the article even much better. The content is relative to the topic, and everything is up to date. It goes along well, and it does not steer off topic either. I do not feel as if anything was missing being that it fit in perfectly.