User:Moorej1/Orexin antagonist/Sofiaebeo Peer Review

General info
Moorej1
 * Whose work are you reviewing?


 * Link to draft you're reviewing:
 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists):Orexin antagonist

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.)

Hello Moorej1. Solid article overall, straight to the point and provides evidence based information. Please see a more detailed peer review below.

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?
 * Yes
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
 * Somewhat. Some important sections were briefly mentioned but not described.
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
 * No
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?
 * It is concise and provides a good overview without being overly detailed.

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic?
 * Yes
 * Is the content added up-to-date?
 * Yes
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
 * Based on my observations, there is no content that is missing or out of place in this article.
 * 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
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
 * No claims appear heavily biased.
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
 * None of the view points seemed overrepresented, that being said, it would be nice to see more in-depth information on the history or research origins of this medication as it is fairly new.
 * Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?
 * No

Sources and References
Guiding questions:


 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
 * Yes
 * Does the content accurately reflect what the cited sources say? (You'll need to refer to the sources to check this.)
 * Upon checking the cited sources, the written content does indeed reflect the attached citations.
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
 * Yes
 * Are the sources current?
 * Yes
 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible?
 * I would say yes. Upon checking the references, the authors come from different backgrounds all over the world.
 * Check a few links. Do they work?
 * Yes the links work.

Organization
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
 * Yes. Easy to understand and approachable for most people.
 * 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?
 * Very well organized and easy to follow.

Overall impressions
Guiding questions:


 * Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete?
 * Yes. I like that you added more detail into the Pharmacokinetics section as this is important information to be aware of for any medication, but especially new drugs on the market.
 * What are the strengths of the content added?
 * Some of the strengths of this article include its use of current evidence/sources, conciseness, and organization (easy to read and understand).
 * How can the content added be improved?
 * Some suggestions to enhance or improve this article would be to include more details regarding the history or research origins of this medication as it is fairly new, or some statistics showing how often it is being used or prescribed, or prevalence of side effects in real world data.