User:Mayamatabele/Calcitonin gene-related peptide receptor antagonist/SamTheBioGal 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? (provide username)
 * Mayabatabele
 * Link to draft you're reviewing:
 * User:Mayamatabele/sandbox

Lead
Guiding questions:


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer?
 * Yes
 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?
 * The intro sentence is clear and concise, but maybe should hint at its many uses in the body? I like that the two different types are identified and the family is stated, but why is it significant to study?
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
 * The Lead clearly identifies where the rest of the article is headed and the major sections to be addressed.
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
 * Everything mentioned in the Lead is further expanded later in the article.
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?
 * The Lead is concise and doesn't include more details than necessary to introduce the topic.

Lead evaluation
The lead contains a clear introductory sentence that describes the topic, but may benefit from a brief statement about some of the uses of CGRP. The structure of the lead identifies where the rest of the article is leading and what major sections will be addressed. Everything discussed in the lead is later expanded in the rest of the article and there isn't too much detail in the lead. Overall, it is clear and concise and explains where the rest of the article will lead.

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic?
 * Is the content added up-to-date?
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?

Content evaluation
The content added is valid and up to date. The future information to be added looks like it will be helpful to expanding upon the functions of this peptide.

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral? Yes
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? No
 * 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
So far I'm not seeing any biases and the content added looks neutral. Maybe also add in the location where this peptide is produced.

Sources and References
Guiding questions:


 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? No
 * 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

Sources and references evaluation
Most of the sources are primary sources rather than secondary. The one first source is secondary, but a majority of the rest are primary. The sources are current and focused on the topic.

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? Few (in notes, so I'm sure it'll be fixed)
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? Maybe break down the functions into subcategories of nociception vs vasodilation.

Organization evaluation
Overall, organization looks pretty good, but some subcategories of functions may be beneficial. Spelling errors right now are confined to the notes on future additions, not the portion that has been added to the article.

Overall impressions
Guiding questions:


 * Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete? Yes
 * What are the strengths of the content added? Good functional additions
 * How can the content added be improved? Make those notes into sentences!

Overall evaluation
The notes you have at the bottom to add in look really good. Make sure there are references for all of those and that the references are secondary sources more than primary.