User:Stacyargueta/Allergy test/Gabydrod 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? (provide username)
 * Stacyargueta
 * Link to draft you're reviewing:
 * Allergy test

Lead
Guiding questions:


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer?
 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?

Lead evaluation
This article edited by my peer is very relevant and up to date with today's modern medicine. The Lead's introductory sentence was clear and to the point, giving a general idea of what the entire article would be about. Within this Lead paragraph, she stated the main kinds of allergy testing (allergy blood testing and skin pricking) and later described what they were in the following paragraphs. While the Lead is well-detailed, I did find that it gave information that was not reiterated throughout the article, so it could be corrected by having a more concise introduction and adding more of this research in other areas of the page.

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic?
 * Is the content added up-to-date?
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?

Content evaluation
The content in this article seems to be extremely relevant and never strayed away from the main subject of allergy testing. While reading, I did not feel like anything was outdated, making it easy to stay focused on the information being presented. I have had multiple allergy tests in my life and from my knowledge, this article did not have any major content missing or out of place. It simply gave a general overview on allergy testing with detailed material to get the best understanding on what it is.

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
Articles such as these are based mainly on facts, making it relatively easy to avoid biased positions. This page was incredibly neutral and focused on delivering the information with truth that stays away from any heavy opinions that could be offensive to viewers. While the topics themselves were represented perfectly, I do think the author could elaborate more on allergy testing in adults since there is a brief mention about the preference of needles for babies and children. It is also important for adults to know their options so this could be a beneficial addition to the article.

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
While reading the article, it was clear that each statement was well-researched and quoted with the appropriate citation. Each source was taken from credible websites and scholarly articles from places such as the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence, the NIH and even health expert panels. Of the 5 sources, all were able to be opened and written from 2010 to 2019, meaning they are fairly up to date with current times, but could be fixed. The articles from 2010 should maybe be changed to more updated sources since medicine is constantly evolving, however, it all depends on the content.

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
Considering the few amount edits to this article I thought it was extremely well-written and did is wonderful job at ensuring it was clear and easy to read. Usually, articles with an overflow of information make the reader easily bored or confused, but this page was concise while still being able to provide all the material needed to inform the audience. It was free from grammatical errors and overall, maintained a well-organized flow that made it simple to follow along.

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?

Images and media evaluation
This article did not contain any images or other media.

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
As a whole, I felt this article contained enough information to effectively inform someone on allergy testing and the methods in doing so. Above all, I believe its greatest strength was its clarity and ability to be read with ease. For many people, being informed about processes in the medical field can be extremely complicated and difficult to understand. Stacy broke it down to its most simple form so anyone can be made aware of allergies and the various methods of testing. For improvement, she can possibly add symptoms to look out for if someone should considering taking an allergy test.