User:Arr8050/Coriolis effect (perception)/ButterflyGirl135 Peer Review

General info
Arr8050
 * Whose work are you reviewing?


 * Link to draft you're reviewing:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Arr8050/Coriolis_effect_%28perception%29?veaction=edit&preload=Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org_draft_template
 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists):Coriolis effect (perception)

Evaluate the drafted changes
Overall, I think you did a great job! There is not much for me to say when it comes to content. The start is effective and does a wonderful job explaining what the effect is. I also like that you mentioned the pseudo-Coriolis Effect. I do think a picture could be great for your topic if at all possible to find, since I imagine most visuals are related to the physics version. You may also want to break apart a couple of the sentences at the start, such as the second sentence that starts with, "this effect comes about as the head is moved in contrary..." The way you phrase it is easily understandable, but the sentence does feel a little too long while reading.

Article


 * History

History section flows well and is easy to understand. I like that it is more concise and focused solely on the history instead of the current iteration of the Wikipedia page that is more jumbled up. You may consider adding a sentence about the modern interpretation, and maybe even reiterate the modern role in the domain of psychophysical perception.

You made a good balance of clear and technical with your descriptions in this section, and the content from the various articles is paraphrased well with the Wikipedia guidelines in mind. This section is strong and flows well, I do not think anything needs real change.
 * Causes and Effects


 * Real World Instances

Like the previous section, I think this section is well-crafted and does not need change. It is straight-forward and informative, and the mentioning of the pseudo-Coriolis effect is a good choice.

References/Further Reading

The references all seem solid and appropriate with the Wikipedia guidelines. You were able to find a lot of good sources as well, which adds to the quality of your article. Many of the sources seem to have similar information further boosting the content.