User:Lmn23/Anandamide/Dennyslimon10 Peer Review

General info
User:Lmn23
 * Whose work are you reviewing?


 * Link to draft you're reviewing
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Lmn23/Anandamide?veaction=edit&preload=Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org_draft_template
 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists):Anandamide

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.)

Lead

Guiding questions:


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer?  No.
 * 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?  A little. It doesn't really mention how it's going to talk about the a few sections like research or production.
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?  No, the article includes all the information it mentions in the lead.
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?  I think the lead could use some rearranging. For example, maybe the last sentence in the first paragraph could go right after the first sentence. The second to lat sentence could also be broken up into two. It just doesn't really seem to run together to me. The third paragraph is also a little confusing to read.

Content

Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic?  No content has been added.
 * Is the content added up-to-date?  No content has been added.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?  There is some content missing or could use some clarification. For example, the article all of a sudden mentions AEA in the research and production section after only mentioning what the abbreviation means in the very first sentence in the article. Maybe it could be spelt out the first time it is used again and then use the abbreviation for the times that follow. More sections could be added also without different types of information.
 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics?  No.

Tone and Balance

Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral?  Yes, the content is neutral.
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?  No, everything seems to be unbiased.
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?   All the viewpoints seem to be well represented.
 * Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?  No content has been added.

Sources and References

Guiding questions:


 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?  New content hasn't been added,
 * Does the content accurately reflect what the cited sources say? (You'll need to refer to the sources to check this.)  Yes for the most part. I did see one sentence that needs a source.
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?  Yes, the sources are thorough.
 * Are the sources current?  Yes, most sources are current.
 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible?  There are a total of 55 sources which is a good range of sources.
 * Are there better sources available, such as peer-reviewed articles in place of news coverage or random websites? (You may need to do some digging to answer this.)  The sources are good, but as mentioned before a few more are needed to support information.
 * Check a few links. Do they work?  Yes, the links I clicked on did work.

Organization

Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?  No new content has been added.
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors?  No new content has been added.
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?  No new content has been added.

Images and Media

No images or media were added.

Overall impressions

Guiding questions:


 * Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete?  No new content has been added.
 * What are the strengths of the content added?  No new content has been added.
 * How can the content added be improved? The content overall in the article could use a couple sentences rearranges and some clarification on certain things. I found some paragraphs hard to follow.