User:Samcattrano/Cocaine intoxication/Larne2019 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? Samcanttrano
 * Link to draft you're reviewing:Cocaine intoxication

Lead
Guiding questions:


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer?
 * There appears to be no consistent of updated changes to the article in comparison to its previous, furthermore, there appears to be no sandbox for the page
 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?
 * The article does have a succinct and informative beginning sentence
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
 * The lead lacks a proper thesis or sum-up of the articles key points
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
 * No, all the information is found within the article
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?
 * The lead is concise

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic?
 * Yes, the content added is on the topic of the article provided
 * Is the content added up-to-date?
 * The content added is current and up to date
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
 * all the content provided it appropriate to the article

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral?
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
 * Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?

Tone and balance evaluation
The tone within the article is neutral, with all the data being represented equally and properly.

Sources and References
Guiding questions:


 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
 * Are the sources current?
 * Check a few links. Do they work?

Sources and references evaluation
All the sources are linked properly and work correctly, they are reputable sources as well

Organization
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors?
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?

Organization evaluation
The content provided is easy to understand even without knowing what some of the words mean due to lack of information on the medical field, it is grammatically correct and well organized

Images and Media
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
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?
 * What are the strengths of the content added?
 * How can the content added be improved?

Overall evaluation
Overall the article does still need some work but it certainly has made some significant improvement in comparison to its previous