User:Nbullis2018/Binge eating/Curtavian12 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? I believe it has
 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic? Yes it does however it is very short
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections? No it does not
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? No
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? It is very simple and short, in my opinion it doesn't cover what most of the article is talking about

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic? The content is relevant
 * Is the content added up-to-date? It appears to be up to date based on the sources that were used
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? No everything in the article belongs there

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral? Yes there isn't really much of a biased opinion in there article
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? Not at all
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? Underrepresented because I cant really tell what they think at all.
 * Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another? I don't think it attempts to persuade the author but after reading you can clearly see that binge eating isn't good for you.

Sources and References
Guiding questions:


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

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? One error I noticed was that esophagus was spelled wrong
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? Yes it is

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


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic? No there isn't any
 * 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

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 is
 * How exhaustive is the list of sources? Does it accurately represent all available literature on the subject? I believe so
 * 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? Not any that I know of
 * Does the article link to other articles so it is more discoverable? No

Overall impressions
Guiding questions:


 * Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete? I feel like the article is well on its way and has a lot of potential to be great. However at the moment it isn't all the way finished yet.
 * What are the strengths of the content added? It gives a great deal of information to understanding the basics of binge eating.
 * How can the content added be improved? By adding more content and just actually completing the article will definitely improve the content.