User:AJS1998/Longitudinal fissure/Jhelbing 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) AJS1998
 * Link to draft you're reviewing: Longitudinal fissure

Lead
Guiding questions:


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer?
 * No, the lead paragraph could include the clinical significance of the longitudinal fissure. The lead paragraph briefly describes what the structure is and what it is made of, but should provide a more overall picture of the entire article.
 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?
 * Yes, the first sentence provides a definition of the anatomical structure, providing a good foundation for the article.
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
 * A brief description of a majority of the topics is discussed, but the clinical significance should briefly be discussed.
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
 * Not that I found.
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?
 * I felt the lead was concise and could be modified slightly with an additional couple of sentences to provide a complete picture of the entire article. I do not feel the brief overview is too concise as it saves some details for the body of the article.

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic?
 * Yes, I would try to connect the paragraph titled "phylogenetically" more to the longitudinal fissure as the direct connection is unclear.
 * Is the content added up-to-date?
 * Overall yes, one of the sources was published in 1972. Might be beneficial to trace the source to something more recent that cites the article.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
 * Currently, the phylogeneticaly paragraph under development does not have a clear connection to the longitudinal fissure. If a clearer connection is established, it may benefit the overall article.

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral?
 * yes, the content does not appear to attempt to persuade readers
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
 * No
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
 * No
 * Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?
 * "Without the presence of longitudinal fissure, the corpus callosotomy procedure would be significantly more challenging and dangerous, as it would require the surgeon to navigate through densely connected cortical areas."--This statement appears to be opinion based rather than factual based as it is not cited and stating that something is "more challenging and dangerous" is individual opinion. What is challenging for one person may not be challenging for another.

Sources and References
Guiding questions:


 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
 * Yes, content is based on journal articles and academic institution websites.
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
 * Yes, sources demonstrate wide range of perspectives from biological basis to neuroscience to endocrinology based studies.
 * Are the sources current?
 * Overall yes, I would try to find a more recent source that utilizes source 11 since it was published in 1972.
 * Check a few links. Do they work?
 * Yes. Source 2 states access is restricted and only the abstract was able to be viewed.

Organization
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
 * The writing is very concise but could utilize more details to clearly connect it to the overall Longitudinal Fissure topic. Many ideas, especially under development lack a clear connection to the topic, leaving readers to connect the dots.
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors?
 * Not that I noticed
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?
 * I would probably re-organize it to have structure before development. That way readers have a better understanding of what the structure is before going into how it develops.

Images and Media
Guiding questions: If your peer added images or media


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic?
 * Yes, the stages of development and location in the brain is helpful. Multiple pictures demonstrating the same structure are not necessary, choose the best image to achieve the intention to avoid cluttering the page and distracting readers.
 * Are images well-captioned?
 * The captions are very brief and could include greater detail to provide the reader with a better idea of what is depicted. The captions lack a clear statement of the main purpose of why they are included.
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations?
 * I do not believe there are any issues. Appears the images were obtained on public domains.
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way?
 * Include the images within the sections that refer to them. This helps draw the readers attention in.

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?