User:N8tegr8/Addictive personality/Samantha R Taylor Peer Review

Peer review

In the introduction, I think it was a good idea to remove the quote from Alan R. Lang. When I read the quote, some questions arose so I think removing it was best for the purpose of being clear. The additions that were made fit well with the topic although, I think the paragraph could be made more concise. Overall, the paragraph was improved with facts and more information that replaced the quote.

I also appreciate the separating of genetic and environmental factors. This made the information easier to read and although the subjects do correlate, being able to read them as separate subjects as well as the studies that align with them was helpful. More explanation of terms that were added such as, loco-motor response is a great opportunity for more sources to be added as well as opportunity to make the paragraph more clear.

The section on biopsychosocial traits could be expanded more just because biopsychosocial aspects are very prevalent and it would be interesting to see what other information you could find to make this paragraph better. For example, another study about a specific addictive action could be added here.

I also agree with the other peer reviewer in that the description section could use subheadings to make the section more organized and easier to read.

I think you guys are doing a great job overall! ~~~~

General info

• Whose work are you reviewing? (provide username)
• Link to draft you're reviewing:

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?

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?

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?

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?

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?

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 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?