User:Nbullis2018/Binge eating/Samcattrano 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? no
 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic? Yes this article does provide a good introductory sentence
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections? yes the article does give a brief description of what is going to be stated within the article
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? no
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? no

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic? Yes all the content goes along with the subtopics
 * Is the content added up-to-date? Yes
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? Some of the paragraph are still short, maybe add some more detail.

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 the article is very unbiased

Sources and References
Guiding questions:


 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? Yes the new content added has been cited by souces
 * 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

Organization
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? yes this article was easy to understand
 * 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? yes the article is broken down into sub topics

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? no images are in the article
 * 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
 * How exhaustive is the list of sources? Does it accurately represent all available literature on the subject? yes the sources go along with binge eatings
 * 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? the article
 * Does the article link to other articles so it is more discoverable? yes the article has many different articles added to help give the reader other options to look into

Overall impressions
Guiding questions:


 * Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete? The article revised helps the reader understand the topic more then before.
 * What are the strengths of the content added? very well written, each subtopic was explain well
 * How can the content added be improved? adding images and expanding your details