User:Vrwclemson/Endorphins/Gbgaski 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? Vrwclemson
 * Link to draft you're reviewing: Endorphins

Lead
Lead evaluation

The lead has been updated to include a concise introductory sentence explaining endorphins, outline of the major sections covered in the article. The lead does not go overly in-depth and does not include information that is not further discussed.

Content evaluation
All of the content added is relevant to endorphins, citing multiple new sources within the past five years, including one as recently as February of 2019. The article has been updated to include information on morphine in relation to endorphins. There are no obvious content gaps, but there might be excessive information on the etymology of endorphins. This topic is not related to historically underrepresented populations or topics.

Tone and balance evaluation
The article is neutral with minimal bias and no attempt to persuade the reader in any direction.

Sources and references evaluation
All sources appear to be supported by reliable sources with no reference to original research. The sources are current, multiple within the past five years, some as recent as February 2019. This article also includes sources written by women who have been historically underrepresented in STEM. All of the links I checked were functioning.

Organization evaluation
Overall, the article is well-written and organized in a way that makes it easy for the reader to follow. The information is clear and concise; however, due to the topic's complexity, the article may be difficult to understand for people who do not have a background in science. There are relevant internal Wikipedia links provided when new information is introduced to help readers. There are no apparent grammatical mistakes.

Images and media evaluation
There are no images or media. Including images could enhance the readers' understanding.

Overall evaluation
Overall, the quality of the article has improved. More current sources have been added, dead links were fixed, and syntax and grammar were improved. These modifications strengthen the article by improving its readability and reliability.