User:RedStorm1/Opioid use disorder/JacksLog 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

 * I am reviewing RedStorm1 article on opioid use disorder
 * Link to draft you're reviewing: Opioid use disorder

Lead
Guiding questions:


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer? The most recent data is from 2016 which I believe is up to date. It has good recent statistics to show the importance of opioid use disorder.
 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic? Yes it does. The article clearly states what it is going to be discussing being opioid use disorder and introduces the idea of the problems that patients face with this issue.
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections? I think this lead section does a great job introducing all of the sections. Granted the lead does not go into detail, but it does include everything that is going to be discussed later such that you know what aspects of the disorder you will learn about.
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? No, as stated previously the lead section I think does a very good job essentially indexing everything that will be discussed in the article.
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? Since everything is included in the lead section, I believe there could be some portions that can be cut down. For instance for the diagnosis you can limit that section to just state that it is a DSMV diagnosis, and then go into further detail in that section of the article. I also believe you do not need to go through each symptom since you discus it later.

Lead evaluation:
As stated above the lead section is extremely good. I believe that the information provided does a great job detailing what the article is going to be discussing. However, since you do have a history tab dating back to the origins of opioid use I would mention some of that at the beginning of the lead section. I also believe the information is up to date however there might be more recent data now. Lastly, I would cut down on some of the details currently in the lead section. Since you do go over all of the aspects that you are discussing in the article, I believe you can cut down on some information as stated above. As it is the lead section is very good, but if you cut down on some information and add more recent data with some information about the history this will be a great lead section.JacksLog (talk) 17:33, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic? Yes it is you discuss everything that should be included for opioid use disorder. However, I would add some information specifically elaborate on the symptoms of overdose and how that is treated.
 * Is the content added up-to-date? Yes it is.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? As stated earlier I would go over more on the treatment of overdose and rather than listing the symptoms discuss when these symptoms are present how do you treat.

Content evaluation
I believe that there are portions of the content section that can have elaboration. The data that is present is very good, but there is still a little more that I would like added. As stated before I believe there should be more information on the treatment for opioid overdose, and how to spot it. As well as how successful that treatment is in the section discussing overdose rather than just a slight mention in deaths. There should also be more on overdose in the mechanism section since it does play a prevalent role in opioid use disorder. With those changes I believe that the content section will be much improved. I do like the fact there is information on the receptors as well. JacksLog (talk) 17:52, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral? In the content section it is. However, there is some negative connotation in the lead section. Even though there are statements that have citations, I feel that some of the wording makes it feel like the writer had negative feelings toward people that have opioid use disorder. However that is only in the lead section.
 * 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? As mentioned above there is a sentence or two that appears to have a negative connotation to it rather than just presenting the facts of opioid use disorder. JacksLog (talk) 17:43, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

Tone and balance evaluation
As mentioned prior I believe the balance is very neutral to the whole article. The article distributes the facts as they are without leading the reader to pick a certain side. However, the lead section does have some negative sentences. To me as a reader it made me believe that there is something personally wrong with the individuals that have opioid use disorder rather than it being a medical problem. If these sentences are changed specifically the opening statement to just present the facts rather than discussing how bad they are it will be more neutral.JacksLog (talk) 17:49, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

Sources and References
Guiding questions:


 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? Yes however I believe the newspaper articles can be removed since they are secondary to other more reliable sources.
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? Yes there are good sources, but there is a mixture of unreliable sources that can be removed. I feel they do not add much to the article.
 * Are the sources current? Yes there are up to date sources to mix with older sources, but I believe there is enough current sources to make me believe the information is up to date.
 * Check a few links. Do they work? Yes

Sources and references evaluation
Overall I like the amount of sources utilized in this article. Granted the sources like the New York Times does not add anything to the article and could be removed. There is also many sources utilized and therefore not all are the best, but there is enough meta analysis and books to show the information is reliable. I also feel that there is enough up to date sources to show the information has been updated to counteract the sources that are from the early 2000s. JacksLog (talk) 17:57, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

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? No
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? Yes

Organization evaluation
The main organization change that I would make is adding the opioid overdose information to the mechanism portion. I believe it is a center point to opioid use disorder, and should be added with dependence. I do believe the grammar and spelling is good, and most of the article is very easy to read. The portions on the receptors gets more challenging due to the medical jargon, so if there is any way to simplify that section I would. I also am not sure what sections you added specifically or what you took away, but overall I believe the article is easy to follow and is well organized. I would just make the simple changes stated above. JacksLog (talk) 18:02, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

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


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

Images and media evaluation
The few images that are present do help with the article. I believe the medication images are placed appropriately and help the reader understand what these medications are aka pills and not liquid or a shot. I also believe the graphs do a good job visually showing the epidemiology in the US. JacksLog (talk) 18:04, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

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?
 * 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?

New Article Evaluation
This article is not new. JacksLog (talk) 18:04, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

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?
 * How can the content added be improved? I would remove the negative sounding sentences in the lead section. I would add more to opioid overdose in the mechanism section. I would discuss the epidemiology of the success of using naltrexone for overdose. I would take away some of the sources that are not good sources like the New York Times. I would also add a sentence about the history in the lead section since this is discussed further down.

Overall evaluation
I am not sure what specifically you added or took away, but I can say that the article is very well done. This article does a good job staying neutral to the topic of opioid use disorder except for the lead section as mentioned above. I also believe the content is very well organized and extremely complete except for the overdose portion that was also mentioned above. I also appreciate the images that were added to the article. Overall I believe this article is very well done. There are a few small changes that I would make as I stated in the above sections of the peer review, but it is a very good article. It is very well cited and can actually have some citations removed since they don't add much. I believe this is a very good article and whatever you did add or take away does flow well within this article. JacksLog (talk) 18:11, 7 December 2019 (UTC)