User:Amcclanahan/Brain-computer interface/KevP25 Peer Review

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing?

Amcclanahan


 * Link to draft you're reviewing
 * Brain–computer interface

Peer review
I utilized Wikipedia's Peer Review template, which breaks peer review down into these categories:

Lead

 * The lead section is a great introduction to the topic of brain-computer interface. It is short and to the point, as suggested by the Wiki writing style guide.
 * The author implemented small changes that further clarified what modalities are classified as non-invasive, partially invasive, and invasive.
 * I think this is a great lead paragraph. I don't recommend any changes to this section.



Content

 * Endovascular Section:
 * I appreciated the addition of the Stentrode paragraph in the endovascular section. The author used very recent and relevant research to keep this WikiPage up to date. This is such a new and forth coming field so I imagine there will be many additions to this page over time.
 * The additions are well-cited and linked appropriately to their respective Wiki Pages when needed.
 * I do find this section to be very medical terminology heavy, however, I believe that is unavoidable due to the complex nature of this topic. If possible, it may be beneficial to try to keep wording to easily digestible material for the general public - but I recognize how difficult this is with this topic.
 * ECoG Section:
 * Again, the author added groundbreaking and recent research to the article to keep it up to date.
 * I think this was a nice update that highlights how far the medical community has come with this type of technology.
 * EEG Section:
 * In this section specifically the author added a systemic review of randomized controlled trials - which is the gold standard for citations for Wiki.
 * I think this was a useful addition to this section to summarize the efficacy and potential of this technology.



Tone and Balance

 * The author added some clarification to the wording in the communication section that helps the flow of the section.



Sources and Resources

 * The author used many peer reviewed sources to back up his statements.
 * As this is a new and emerging topic, he tried to use systemic reviews when possible.
 * Since this is such an evolving field, the author properly cited primary research when necessary to keep the article up to date.



Organization

 * I think the Wiki Page is well organized.
 * I don't have any recommended changes.



Images and Media

 * I really appreciated the hand-drawn image that the author added to the article. It very simply shows the differences between the modalities of BCIs.
 * This was a great addition to the article and is visually pleasing to audiences.



Overall impressions

 * The authors significantly contributed to this article's development.
 * He tried his best to use systematic reviews and text book material, but this is such a new and evolving field that required primary sources to show the progress the medical community has made in recent years.
 * I believe it may be hard for the lay person to read this entire article, but I also think that is due to the complexity of the topic.
 * The author used appropriate linking and clarification to keep the article as easy to read as possible.