User:Ktashkulov/Poppers/Hasan Swain 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? Ktashkulov
 * Link to draft you're reviewing: Poppers

Lead
Guiding questions:


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer?
 * No. The lead focuses on the general chemical composition, banning, and effect of Poppers. The editor I'm reviewing has yet to add mention of "sex risks" to the lead.
 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?
 * Yes. The lead includes enough general information to successfully encompass the content of the article.
 * 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?
 * Yes. The lead mentions the chemical composition, effect, and recreational use of Poppers. These topics are covered in the "Chemistry" and "Administration" portions of the article.
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?
 * The lead is perfectly concise, as it gives just the right amount of both technical and general information to inform the reader of what the remainder of the article covers.

Lead evaluation
''The original, unchanged lead as it stands definitely serves it's purpose. Judging by the content the editor has added regarding "Sex risks", it may not be possible to insert that information into the lead and maintain it's concise nature. I did not see any additional content in the editor's sandbox, however, I am sure the editor may provide additional information that could prove to be useful in the lead.''

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic?
 * Yes. The content added gives relevant insight to the risk associated with administering the drug, however, the additional information could potentially benefit from the application of some technical information (perhaps statistics). Without the use of technical information to emphasize "Sex risks" as a subtopic, it seems as if the potential contraction of HIV from unsafe sex due to Poppers (as the editor has written) can simply be added as a general statement to strengthen the previous subtopic ("Disputed link with HIV/AIDS").
 * Is the content added up-to-date?
 * The content added is up to date, as there will always be a sex risk present with the use of Poppers for as long as HIV/AIDS remains an epidemic.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
 * As previously stated, I believe the editor's added portion could benefit from technical information.

Content evaluation
Overall, I believe the content is relevant, but broad as it stands.

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral?
 * The added content is is entirely neutral and does not contain any bias.
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
 * No. All claims give reasonable explanation with regard to the risk of unsafe sexual practices and the contraction of HIV/AIDS if Poppers are abused and/or used in conjunction with other drugs.
 * 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
The tone is unbiased and refrains from manifesting a point of view that is unnecessary to the article.

Sources and References
Guiding questions:


 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
 * Yes. The editor used content primarily from journals.
 * 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.

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
''There are no immediate errors regarding the organization. The order of the added information appears to be logical.''

Images and Media
(No media has been added to the content.)

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 article is not new.)

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?
 * The additional content enhances the article by providing emphasis with regard to the risk associated with Popper abuse and use in conjunction with other drugs.
 * What are the strengths of the content added?
 * Although the added content is brief, the strengths of this content lie within its mention of the possible contraction of HIV/AIDS through unsafe sexual practice.
 * How can the content added be improved?
 * The added content could be enhanced through some technical information, however, it may be difficult to gather statistics regarding the contraction of HIV/AIDS as a result of unsafe sex while under the influence of Poppers.

Overall evaluation
Overall, the content is entirely relevant and reads as if it belongs in the article.