User:Nbullis2018/Binge eating/BoNeApPlEtEa42 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? ((Nbullis2018))
 * Link to draft you're reviewing: User:Nbullis2018/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))
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections? ((Not all of them))
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? ((No))
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? ((The Lead is concise))

Lead evaluation
The Lead, though lacking a description of some of the article's major sections, is concise and does a fairly good job of providing a quick introduction to the topic.

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? ((The only thing I can think of, as far as missing content goes, is maybe images. Possibly some diagrams pertaining to the topic.))

Content evaluation
The content added is both recent and pertains to the topic. As far as missing content is concerned, some images may need to be added to the article.

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? ((Possibly underrepresented, maybe not when thought of in conjunction with the article itself))
 * Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another? ((No))

Tone and balance evaluation
While there is the possibility that certain areas are underrepresented, the content remains unbiased in how it provides information to the reader.

unbiasedeutralnand

voidsashowing

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))
 * Check a few links. Do they work? ((Yes))

Sources and references evaluation
The sources are all relevant and up-to-date with the topic, supporting all the information provided in the draft. However, it should be noted that sources 1, 2, and 4 are the same source, and the same can be said for sources 3, 5, and 6.

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? ((Very few, if not none))
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? ((Yes))

Organization evaluation
Aside from possibly just one error, the grammar is fine. The draft is well organized and split into sections discussing major points of discussion.

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


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic? ((No))
 * Are images well-captioned? ((There are no images))
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations? ((There are no images))
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way? ((There are no images))

Images and media evaluation
There are no images (in neither the draft, nor the actual article).

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?
 * 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?

New Article Evaluation
Not a new 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? ((The content expands a bit on sections that are a bit lacking in detail))
 * How can the content added be improved? ((More sources, images, and maybe adding more details))

Overall evaluation
The content contributes more detail to sections that are lacking in such, though the draft itself could stand to expand more on the information it provides. Also, the draft is admittedly lacking in numbers when it comes to sources. Adding a few more would be good. Additionally, like the article, the draft has no images whatsoever, so adding some would probably be beneficial.