User:Olrogers/Neonatal hypoglycemia/Khoerth 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?  Olrogers
 * Link to draft you're reviewing: User:Olrogers/Neonatal hypoglycemia

Lead
Guiding questions:


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer? The Lead has not been updated but I don't necessarily think that it would need much updating with the information that is currently in my peers sandbox.
 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic? Yes there is a good introductory sentence.
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections? It covers most of the major sections but not really the mechanism or diagnosis sections.
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? No all the info is covered in the article.
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? The lead is fairly concise the only thing that I don't know if it is absolutely needed is that part about how diagnosing is different in the US and UK.

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic? Yes
 * Is the content added up-to-date? Citation 3 that is used in the lead is no longer available.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? I think all the information is useful.

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral? The info in the sandbox is neutral.
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? Not that I saw
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? The article was pretty well balanced
 * 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
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? Yes
 * Are the sources current? Citation 3 that is used in the lead is no longer available. but other than that yes.
 * Check a few links. Do they work?Citation 3 is no longer available.

Organization
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? The content in the sandbox was written concisely
 * 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

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


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

For New Articles Only ( not a new article)
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?

Overall impressions
Guiding questions:


 * Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete? Yes I think that the point to be added helped add something important to the article.
 * What are the strengths of the content added? I think that it adds information that someone would want to know if they came here to to learn more about the topic.
 * How can the content added be improved? I think a little more could be added to the article.