User:Trijanas/Caffeine dependence/Makalaperezz Peer Review

General info
User:Trijanas
 * Whose work are you reviewing?


 * Link to draft you're reviewing:User:Trijanas/Caffeine dependence
 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists):Caffeine dependence

Lead

 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer? I would say it has been. Everything flows together and doesn't seem out of place.
 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic? Yes.
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections? Yes the articel goes over most of everything that will eventually be talked about.
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? No it does not.
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? I would say it is overly detailed.

Content

 * Is the content added relevant to the topic? Yes the contect is relevant.
 * Is the content added up-to-date? Yes.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? no.
 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics? No.

Tone and Balance

 * Is the content added neutral? Yes the content added is neutral.
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? No they strictly talk about ways to get help and treatments that can be done if needed.
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? no there are not.
 * Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another? no.

Sources and References

 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
 * Does the content accurately reflect what the cited sources say? (You'll need to refer to the sources to check this.)
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
 * Are the sources current?
 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible?
 * 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.)
 * Check a few links. Do they work?

Organization

 * 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?

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 for 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

 * 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?