User:AstroWiki143/History of neuroimaging/MinnieMollet3 Peer Review

General info
(provide username)
 * Whose work are you reviewing?


 * Link to draft you're reviewing:
 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists):

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.)

I believe the lead has been partially updated to reflect the new content added, however I believe there could be a more substantial explanation. There is an introductory sentence as well as a brief description, however I wish there was more added so there is a broader understanding of what is being displayed in the article. The information within the introduction is clearly depicted throughout the following content. There is unfortunately so much content disregarded within the introduction that would be appropriate to incorporate. Regarding the tone as well as balance, it is unbiased and neutral. Perfect for an informative article as such. Regarding the references, the notability, sources, they display ample amounts of evidence and citation. This does follow Wikipedia's requirements and it clearly provides insight on where the information was derived from. Regarding their images, I found that they were very insightful as well, and covered the majority of neuroimaging devices I was curious about.