User:Nbullis2018/Binge eating/Averygcraig 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) Nbullis2018
 * Link to draft you're reviewing: Binge eating

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, it defines what binge eating is.
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections? Yes, a description is included in the Contents box.
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? It was brief- there could have been more ideas mentioned that would be discussed later.
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? It is concise.

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic? Yes, it stays on topic.
 * Is the content added up-to-date? Yes.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? Some of the shorter paragraphs could have more information added to them.

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral? Yes.
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? There is no bias.
 * 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, I wasn't persuaded.

Sources and References
Guiding questions:


 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? Yes.
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? Yes.
 * Are the sources current? Yes, the sources are all current.
 * Check a few links. Do they work? Yes, I checked and they work.

Organization
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? For the most part it was clear, but I found some grammar mistakes.
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors? There are some grammar mistakes.
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? Yes, it is broken up into sections that reflect points of the topic.

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


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic? N/A
 * Are images well-captioned? N/A
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations? N/A
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way? N/A

For New Articles Only
If the draft you're reviewing is a new article, consider the following in addition to the above.


 * Does the article meet Wikipedia's Notability requirements - i.e. Is the article supported by 2-3 reliable secondary sources independent of the subject? Yes, it meets the requirements.
 * How exhaustive is the list of sources? Does it accurately represent all available literature on the subject? An appropriate amount of sources are used.
 * 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? Yes.
 * Does the article link to other articles so it is more discoverable? Yes.

Overall impressions
Guiding questions:


 * Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete? There is quality information, but it could go more in depth.
 * What are the strengths of the content added? It is organized and uses many sources to support the topic.
 * How can the content added be improved? The grammar can be fixed and more content can be added to each paragraph.