User:MarcoGirl/User:Strudel3/sandbox/StaticOrc Peer Review

General info
Strudel3
 * Whose work are you reviewing?


 * Link to draft you're reviewing
 * User:Strudel3/sandbox
 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)
 * Mechanism of action of aspirin

Evaluate the drafted changes
Lead:

- Good introductory sentence, covers what Aspirin is and explains what it is used for.

- The lead does describe what will be more extensive in later sections.

- No information that doesn't come up in the article, information in the lead is all relevant.- Some of the descriptions of the implementation of Aspirin feel a little too extensive for a lead section.

Content:

- Content looks to be relevant to the subject.

- Looks up-to-date from looking at sources.

- Content looks to be incomplete at the time of making this review, but this is a first draft.

Tone and Balance:

- All content added is neutral and factual.

- No biases seen in this article.

- All viewpoints of the subject seem to be addressed so far, again the draft is seemingly not complete yet.

- No persuasion in the article, just informative content and tone.

Sources and References:

- Most sentences are sourced, all new content is seemingly backed up by a source.

- Sources given reflect the information within the article.

- All sources are from books/databases, and they reflect the available information on the topic.

- Some sources are older, however using older sources for this subject I believe won't supply outdated or misinformation, due to the subject.

- Sources coming from a spectrum of different authors

- These sources provided seem to be some of the best places to get information from, doesn't seem to be any "better" source.

- Links seem to be in working order.

Organization:

- I noticed only one grammatical error in the lead section, however besides that the article is clear and easy to follow.

- Seems well-organized at the time of making this review, however the titles of subjects within the articles' could be less wordy. The Header of the article also says the supposed title of the article along with "Draft."

Images and Media:

- Images used are good visual aids for what the article is informing one of. Looks to be placed in the right areas, matching the content it is expanding upon.

- Images are well-captioned.

- Seems to adhere to all copyright regulations.

- Images are visually appealing and as said above, are in the right places to match the information related to the picture.

Overall/Notes:

- This article is super informative, and I feel no bias when reading it. I like the way things are organized so far.

- Almost everything is sourced which is great.

- I feel that after editing this article, it will feel more complete than prior, based on reading the original article.

- As said above, the information is easy to digest and well written.

- Overall very good, seems like this article is on track to becoming a good edit to an existing article. I would work on making sure every sentence has a proper source and changing up the subject titles.