User:Eriicaayu/Hormone/Vaniabessos Peer Review

Peer review[edit]

This is where you will complete your peer review exercise. Please use the following template to fill out your review.

Guiding questions:

Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer? yes, the lead has been added to reflect new content.
Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic? yes, both clear and concise.
Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections? Lead doesn't include brief description of all of the major sections, for instance it doesn't mention the discovery of hormones and endocrine signaling or therapeutic use.
Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? No, everything in the lead is discussed in the article.
Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? Overly detailed: no concrete examples are needed in the lead.

Guiding questions:

Is the content added relevant to the topic? yes, content added is relevant to the topic.
Is the content added up-to-date? yes, all. content is up to date.
Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? No content missing and no content that doesn't belong in the article.

Guiding questions:

Is the content added neutral? Yes, content added is all neutral.
Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? No claims that are heavily biased toward a particular position.
Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? No viewpoints that are overrepresented or underrepresented.
Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another? No, the content is not trying to persuade the reader.

Guiding questions:

Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? Yes, all new content is backed up by a reliable secondary source of information.
Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? Yes, all sources are thorough.
Are the sources current? All sources are current except for the textbook from from University Harvard Press.
Check a few links. Do they work? Yes, all the links work.

Guiding questions:

Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? Yes, all content added is well written.
Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors? No grammatical or spelling errors.
Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?

Guiding questions: If your peer added images or media

Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic? Yes, images give a visual explanation of the topic.
Are images well-captioned? Yes, all images are well-captioned.
Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations? Yes, all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations.
Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way? Yes, images are laid out in a visually appealing way.

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?

Guiding questions:

Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete? Yes, the content added improved the overall quality by introducing more sections.
What are the strengths of the content added? The content added has more detail about hormones and there effect on the body.
How can the content added be improved? Add more examples in some sections including Receptors.