User:Pmoszczy/Basal dendrite/Bshoukeir24 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

 * Pmoszczy
 * Link to draft you're reviewing: User:Pmoszczy/sandbox, Basal dendrite

Lead
Guiding questions:


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer? > Not sure what content has been added by this user.
 * 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? > No
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? > Yes
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? > Concise

==== Lead evaluation: I am not sure what new information has been added but the lead has concise and sufficient information to '''build off of for the creation other sections. More information could be added to the information present right now to make it a more thorough over view of the content. However, this is all that is present in the article and I'm not sure what the plan is to develop it. There are no titled subsections.''' ====

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic? ---> There is only a couple of sentences in the entirety of the article.
 * Is the content added up-to-da > Out of the 4 sources, the most recent article is from the year 2015.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?> Missing content, the article is currently a paragraph with no subsections or other information that is given.

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral? > Yes, for the most part.
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? > There is a claim from an article but it is only one sentence and it says "there is proven association" and feel like this could be rephrased. But you need to add more to this part and maybe write it in a different section because it seem like you're talking about a new subject.
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? > Not sufficient enough information to say so except for the study mentioned before.
 * Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another? > Not really, just the part about the study should be rephrased.

Sources and References
Guiding questions


 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?> Sources present are journal articles, yes.
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? > No. Only four sources present in references section of the article.
 * Are the sources current? ---> Most recent of the 4 is from 2015.
 * 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? ---> Concise and clear, need more information.
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors? ---> none in the current content of the article.
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? No subsections, nothing broken down.

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


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

For New Articles Only ---Not sure if this is 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? > Yes.
 * How exhaustive is the list of sources? Does it accurately represent all available literature on the subject? ---> No.
 * 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? > No, which I think is something that should be added to.
 * Does the article link to other articles so it is more discoverable? > It does link to other subjects/articles in wikipedia, however in some of the articles there is no obvious link embedded in those articles to lead to this one about basal dendrites.

Overall impressions
Guiding questions:


 * Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete? > The article needs more content to be completed. Subsections should be added (probably as a whole group should discuss).
 * What are the strengths of the content added? > Not sure what content has been added by user, but the content present does have concise information to give the reader some background knowledge about the topic before they read a more lengthy article.
 * How can the content added be improved? > Addition of content and breaking down the article into subsections. There's a lot of potential fo the article to be developed into something very well written!

==== Overall evaluation: The topic has a lot of potential in terms of the content that should be/could be added. It doesn't seem like this article has been worked on, and more sources and information definitely need to be added. Subsections are important too. The article seems underdeveloped but I'm not sure if this was a new article that users DID add to and this is their work. ====