User:Wickypears/Rimantadine/Narvikvaren 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

• Wikipears
• Rimantadine

Lead

Guiding questions:

• Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer?
  • Yes
• Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?
  • Yes, it's very well and concisely put.
• Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
  • No, doesn't feel completely necessary here.
• Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
  • No
• Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?
  • Concise

Lead evaluation

Looks very good, Gives me a good idea of what I will be reading

Content

Guiding questions:

• Is the content added relevant to the topic?
  • Absolutely
• Is the content added up-to-date?
  • Seems to be more up-to-date than the previous article.
• 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

Guiding questions:

• Is the content added neutral?
  • Yes, some edits neutralize the article a little
• Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
  • No
• Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
  • No, in fact some overrepresentations are removed.
• Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?
  • No

Tone and balance evaluation

Very well balanced, great neutral, informative tone.

Sources and References

Guiding questions:

• Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
  • Looks to be, except for many of the synonyms.
• Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
  • They reflect it well
• Are the sources current?
  • They seem to be
• Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible?
  • Yes, N/A
• Check a few links. Do they work?
  • You could use some more links, try linking a few more articles to topics mentioned (e.g. anticholinergic cells and Hepatitis C)

Sources and references evaluation

Great, could have more links

Organization

Guiding questions:

• Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
  • I think it will look more organized in the finished article
• Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors?
  • None that I haven't pointed out in the talk section :)
• Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?
  • Yes

Organization evaluation

Well organized, just make sure it's well organized in the final article

Images and Media

Guiding questions: If your peer added images or media

• Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic?
  • Definitely. Both figures look great!
• Are images well-captioned?
  • Yes!
• Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations?
  • As far as I can tell
• Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way?
  • The 3D protein model could be be bigger

Images and media evaluation

Adjust the size maybe. The 3D model is difficult to interpret at the size it appears in your sandbox