User:Lwm1715/Sex and drugs/KernelG9900 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? (provide username) Lwm1715
• Link to draft you're reviewing: Sex and drugs

Lead

Guiding questions:

• Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer?
• Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?
• Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
• Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
• Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?

Lead evaluation

The Lead is concise and table of contents is complete. No modification of this part of the article is necessary.

Content

Guiding questions:

• Is the content added relevant to the topic?
• Is the content added up-to-date?
• Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?

Content evaluation

The content added is plentiful, up to date, and relevant to the topic. Most of the sources used were published within the last 5 years.

The section added on prescription drugs seems redundant. Suggest merging it with the content in the opioids section to keep the

article as concise as possible.

Tone and Balance

Guiding questions:

• Is the content added neutral?
• Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
• Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
• Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?

Tone and balance evaluation

The content added is neutral as much of the information added comes from scientific studies.

No attempts were made to endorse the act of having sex while under the influence of drugs.

Sources and References

Guiding questions:

• Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
• Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
• Are the sources current?
• Check a few links. Do they work?

Sources and references evaluation

As stated previously, most of the sources are current, i.e published within the past 5 years.

The links to said sources function properly and the citations are thorough. Reliability of all

sources is decent as they are all scientific in nature and come from reputable sources.

Overall good source material.

Organization

Guiding questions:

• 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?

Organization evaluation

The content is well written albeit with a few minor grammatical errors. "SSRIs, SNRIs, and NDRIs are the most common types of antidepressants. It was also found that it can delayed/decrease orgasms and cause women to have breast enlargement." -> "SSRIs, SNRIs, and NDRIs are the most common types of antidepressants. It was also found that they can delay/decrease the intensity of orgasms and cause breast enlargement in women." Also try to avoid the use of second person in the article. "Alcohol and sex are often joined together in today's society. Although they have different effects based on how much you consume" -> "Alcohol and sex are often joined together in today's society. Although they have different effects based on how much one consumes."

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?

Images and media evaluation

There are no images/media on the article. None are necessary as the content of the article is fairly straightforward.

For New Articles Only

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?

Overall impressions

Guiding questions:

• 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?

Overall evaluation

The content added is definitely a step in the right direction for the article. The structure is well thought out, with each drug discussed having its own sub-heading.

Improve the article by correcting some of the grammatical errors and merging the content of the prescription drug section with the opioids section.