User:AJS1998/Longitudinal fissure/MillerNick 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? 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? N/A
 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic? yes
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections? yes
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? no
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? concise

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic?
 * Is the content added up-to-date? perhaps find some more up to date articles regarding the evolution of the fissure
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? maybe add some significant studies related to the longitudinal fissure

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral? yes
 * 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? no

Sources and References
Guiding questions:


 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? "Without the presence of longitudinal fissure, the corpus callosotomy procedure would be significantly more challenging and dangerous" --> this section could use a source as it does not have anything really backing this up
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? there is a quite large amount of sources considering the relatively short article
 * Are the sources current? not all of them, some of the ones from 2008 and earlier could use an update
 * Check a few links. Do they work? all links tested did work

Organization
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? concise
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors? none were noticed
 * 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? yes but see below for criticisms
 * Are images well-captioned? captions are on topic and significant
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations? yes all that were checked
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way? the end of the article is just an image dump, they need to incorporated better into the article itself

Overall impressions
Guiding questions:


 * Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete? N/A
 * What are the strengths of the content added? N/A
 * How can the content added be improved? N/A