User:Sdavis81/Cannabinoid receptor type 1/Morrisse95 Peer Review

General info
Morrisse95 reviewing Sheridan work.
 * Whose work are you reviewing?


 * Link to draft you're reviewing:User:Sdavis81/Cannabinoid receptor type 1
 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists):Cannabinoid receptor 1

Evaluate the drafted changes
(Compose a detailed peer review here, considering each of the key aspects listed above if it is relevant. Consider the guiding questions, and check out the examples of what feedback looks like.)

Lead: The lead starts of concise with neutral based knowledge on the CB1 receptor. I would put a period after Lipids and start a new sentence with "such as". The lead needs to include the structure of the whole article and which part will be talked about next. There needs to be an explanation of what the receptor does, it goes straight into information of what it is and where its located.

Content:

The content that you wrote is very well written, I would watch out for run on sentences though. It fits to what the article is about.The information inputted is up to date and has references.

Tone and balance:

The information added to the article is neutral and not persuasive. The information is straight to the fact since this article is about a receptor in the brain their is nothing to persuade. Well written tone and very balanced.

Organization:

As mentioned watch out for grammatical errors with run on sentences. Otherwise, it is a very clear article.

References:

I noticed the sources added were from 2016 and I know that there might be newer information added since then so I would look out for that.The references all work however I am having a hard time find what you actually are citing, are you just paraphrasing the articles you are referencing or is there specific parts.

Images:

If there is more images you can add then wonderful, otherwise, the images on the article already are great.

The articles new information has a wonderful reference section that has met Wikipedia's notability requirements.

Over all, the information that you have added is very informative and provides knowledge that the original article did not have.