User:Mattsoml7031/Opioid epidemic/Rebarae 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

 * Mattsoml7031 - The Opioid Epidemic
 * Link to draft you're reviewing: User:Mattsoml7031/Opioid epidemic

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? It begins to talk about the article, but it does not necessarily briefly describe the major highlights of the article.
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? Yes, but it adds to the article such as talking about what kinds of opioids there are and what exactly opioids do to the human brain.
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? The Lead is concise and is not overly detailed.

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic? Yes, it is very informational and does not talk about what is already stated in the article.
 * Is the content added up-to-date? Yes, the oldest reference provided is from 2 years ago.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? No, I do not believe so. I believe it adds to the article well. However, there is always room for more information to be added, but the information added currently are complete thoughts.
 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics? The user added information on adolescents. I believe the user did not have equity gaps, however, the article does only talk about women and adolescents and does not talk about men and the older generations. However, it does focus on the populations most at risk for opioid use disorder.

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral? I believe the information added is neutral and very educational.
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? I do not believe the information added is heavily biased, although it is focused on adolescents.
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? The information touches on the fact that treating adolescents is more difficult and it also touches on family support but does not expand much on them. I believe these could be expanded to be a little more well rounded.
 * Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another? No, I do no believe it does. The information is very neutral and educational.

Sources and References
Guiding questions:


 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? Yes it is.
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? Yes they do.
 * Are the sources current? Yes, the oldest one is from 2018 and the newest one is from 2020.
 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible? It looks as though the authors used are a diverse spectrum.
 * Check a few links. Do they work? Yes, all of the links work.

Organization
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? Yes it is.
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors? No but there are a couple of sentences that could have better sentence structure. But there is nothing that sticks out as being poorly written.
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? Yes, the author has three different paragraphs that are organized by different subjects but are all also tied together.

Images and Media
Guiding questions: If your peer added images or media

- There are no images added to the article.


 * 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.

- The article is not new.


 * 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, I believe that there was some gray area that was filled by the new information provided, such as why opioids are worse in adolescents and what could be done to help them.
 * What are the strengths of the content added? There is strong information about what opioids do to the adolescent brain which adds to the article and has the ability to get through to the reader to think again about how much they affect adolescents.
 * How can the content added be improved? The paragraph on family involvement, prevention, and risk factors could be expanded more so the reader is not left asking more questions than when they began the article. For example, how to correctly dispose of opioids and/or what the family can do to help prevent/intervene with the use of opioids.