User:SamTheBioGal/Angiotensin/peerreview

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) SamTheBioGal
 * Link to draft you're reviewing: User:SamTheBioGal/Angiotensin

Lead
Guiding questions:


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer? No, but not needed
 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic? Does not apply
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections? No, consider editing the lead
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? No
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? Concise

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic? Yes
 * Is the content added up-to-date? Some is - consider finding a more recent reference to replace the 1998 paper. A secondary source/review would be ideal
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? No

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

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? Since there is not a separate article on angiotensinogen this section could be expanded more
 * Are the sources current? Not all - see comment above regarding 1998 reference
 * 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
 * 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? No, there is only 1 paragraph, but additional content could be added and organized.

Images and Media
Guiding questions: If your peer added images or media (no images or media)

'''There is an image on Wikimedia commons, but it is in Polish. It would be cool to create and add somethin glike this if you have time.'''


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic? Does not apply
 * Are images well-captioned? Does not apply
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations? Does not apply
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way? Does not apply

For New Articles Only
'''If the draft you're reviewing is a new article, consider the following in addition to the above. (Not a new article )'''

Does not apply


 * 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? The user seemed to add information regarding the topic to the article, and it appeared to be information regarding formatting as well.


 * What are the strengths of the content added? The content that the user added seemed like it was relevant to the topic assigned.
 * How can the content added be improved? I believe that more information needs to be added to have a clear flow of the edits made.

Overall evaluation
The information and references regarding angiotensinogen will improve the curent angiotensin article, but I think there is room for additional content and maybe even an image.

UWM.AP.Endo (talk) 16:28, 14 November 2019 (UTC)