User:Powell Cat/Hormone/Chevyjm Peer Review

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing?

Joshua Basile @Powell Cat


 * Link to draft you're reviewing
 * User:Powell Cat/Hormone


 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)
 * Hormone

Lead
Guiding questions:


 * Lead definitely has a strong topic sentence that describes what the article is about.
 * Lead is concise, but maybe to short
 * Can use some expanding to cover or summarize more of the supporting information cover in this article
 * Opened up a parenthesis, but never closed. Lookout for grammar.
 * The content of the article is strong, so a nice summary in the Lead section is possible

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic?
 * Content is relevant to the topic! Though there seems to be content from other topics as well. Proteins,
 * Is the content added up-to-date?
 * Yes
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
 * No
 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics?
 * No

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral?
 * Yes, but watch out for words like "oversimplification" it has an undertone to it.
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
 * The use of the word "oversimplification" seemed bias.
 * 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

Sources and References
Guiding questions:


 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
 * A few sentences in the second section "Intro and overview" can use citations.
 * Does the content accurately reflect what the cited sources say? (You'll need to refer to the sources to check this.)
 * Yes
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
 * Yes
 * Are the sources current?
 * Majority are. One is from 1968 but still relevant somewhat. Could definitely find a more recent one on that though
 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible?
 * N/A
 * Check a few links. Do they work?
 * Please, make links hyperlinks for sources.

Organization
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
 * Very easy to read.
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors?
 * Just the unclosed parenthesis in lead section.
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?
 * For the most part. It seems to jump from topic to topic within hormones, but this may be due to working on an already extensive topic and adding as best as possible

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


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

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?
 * Very easy to follow and provides a strong psychological perspective. As well as it provides a comparison between neurotransmitters and hormones.
 * How can the content added be improved?
 * The content can be improved my strengthening the lead section, but aside from that looks good! Good job!