User:18roo/Lateralization of brain function/Inferior12 Peer Review

General info

 * Lead:
 * The lead appears to be a direct copy of the existing lead in the article. It hasn't been updated to reflect any new content added in the peer review. The lead should briefly summarize the key points that are added in the review. Content:
 * The content added is relevant to the topic of lateralization of brain function and includes valuable insights regarding recent research on hemispheric specialization. It adds depth to the article.
 * The added content appears up-to-date and addresses the evolving understanding of lateralization. Tone and Balance:
 * There doesn't seem to be any overrepresentation or underrepresentation of viewpoints. The review is neutral and balanced.
 * The content added in the review doesn't attempt to persuade the reader toward any particular position. It is informative and unbiased. Sources and References:
 * The content added relies on secondary sources to support the information, which is in line with Wikipedia's guidelines. However, it would be helpful to specify which sources are being used to support each point.
 * It's crucial to ensure that the content accurately reflects what the cited sources say. This is especially important in a scientific article like this one.
 * The sources should be thorough, reflecting the available literature on the topic. It would be beneficial to include a variety of sources, including peer-reviewed articles, to ensure comprehensive coverage. Organization:
 * The peer review doesn't specifically comment on the organization, grammatical or spelling errors in the content. However, it's important to ensure that the added content is well-written, clear, and free from errors. Images and Media:
 * The peer review doesn't mention whether images were added or evaluated, so it's important to check whether the article includes images that enhance understanding and whether they adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations. For New Articles Only:
 * The peer review doesn't explicitly address the notability of the article. However, it's important to ensure that the article meets Wikipedia's notability requirements, supported by reliable sources. Overall impressions: The article's content, sources, and tone are highlighted in this well-written peer review. It would be beneficial, though, to address the article's lead and structure as well as offer specific recommendations for enhancements. For even more improvement, it would be beneficial to go over the article's photos, notability, and adherence to Wikipedia principles.

Evaluate the drafted changes
(Compose a detailed peer review here, considering each of the key aspects listed above if it is relevant. Consider the guiding questions, and check out the examples of what feedback looks like.)