User:Swaneybunch7/Placental lactogen/Melbaby52822 Peer Review

General info
Swaneybunch7
 * Whose work are you reviewing?


 * Link to draft you're reviewing.:User:Swaneybunch7/Placental lactogen - Wikipedia
 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists):Placental lactogen - Wikipedia

Lead
Guiding questions:


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer?
 * The person did add a whole new section to improve the lead.
 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?
 * Yes, they kept it the same, but also added on
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
 * In the beginning the original article did not have major section, but the person added them in making the article flow better
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
 * I would say that yes, they included a lot more information
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?
 * It is concise and to the point.

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic?
 * I would say that the added content is relative and builds on the topic
 * Is the content added up-to-date?
 * Yes and provided citations to check
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
 * In any article there is going to be missing information because things always develope, but not in this sense. Nothing is there that does not belong.
 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics?
 * No it does not deal with this issue.

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral?
 * The information is factual and neutral.
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
 * All information is neutral.
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
 * No, they seem to be all level or equal in representation.
 * Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?
 * The information is clear and not persuading the reader to favor any position in the article.

Sources and References
Guiding questions:


 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
 * Yes, the sources are reliable.
 * Does the content accurately reflect what the cited sources say? (You'll need to refer to the sources to check this.)
 * Yes. the content is reflected in the correct way for the source to the article.
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
 * They are in depth and thorough.
 * Are the sources current?
 * I would say yes, they are current enough to be reliable.
 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible?
 * The sources are made from a medical clinic so I can assume that there are more than one author. There are no historically marginalized individuals.
 * Are there better sources available, such as peer-reviewed articles in place of news coverage or random websites? (You may need to do some digging to answer this.)
 * In my opinion, there are always better sources because there is always new information; especially when it is medical.
 * Check a few links. Do they work?
 * Checked all the link, yes, they work.

Organization
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
 * It is concise and easy to understand and read even when you do not know what any of it is.
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors?
 * None that I could see.
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?
 * Very well organized and put together. Sections make it simple and make the article appear clean.

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


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic?
 * There are no images on the original article or the draft.
 * Are images well-captioned?
 * No image.
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations?
 * No image.
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way?
 * No image

Overall impressions
Guiding questions:


 * Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete?
 * I would state that it made it cleaner and more informational and complete.
 * What are the strengths of the content added?
 * The article is longer and in depth. There are sections which helps understanding.
 * How can the content added be improved?
 * I would say that the content added can be improved by making the bullet points capital rather than lower case. Presents better in that form. All the different number levels in the article could be put in a graph from what is good to what is not so that it can be easily understood because reading a lot of numbers like that can be difficult to follow.