User:AstroWiki143/History of neuroimaging/PapiMan1 Peer Review

General info
(User:AstroWiki143)
 * Whose work are you reviewing?


 * Link to draft you're reviewing:User:AstroWiki143/History of neuroimaging
 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists):History of neuroimaging

Evaluate the drafted changes
LEAD

Does the lead include a brief description of the articles major sections?

'''The content does not explicitly mention the major sections of the article. However, the sections about early uses of brain imaging and various neuroimaging techniques are apparent in the text. The text does not have major sections; it is presented as a continuous narrative. However, it covers the historical development of neuroimaging techniques, starting with early methods and progressing to more modern ones.'''

CONTENT

Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?

'''The content appears to be comprehensive and relevant to the topic of neuroimaging. However, it includes some text at the end that seems to be unrelated. This part should be removed from the final article.The content appears to be relevant to the topic of neuroimaging and its historical development.'''

Is the content added up-to-date?

'''The content provides historical information, and while the historical information itself is accurate, it doesn't require real-time updates.The content covers the historical development of neuroimaging techniques, so it is not expected to be up-to-date in terms of recent advancements. The historical information appears accurate.'''

Is the Content added neutral?

The content is presented in a neutral and factual manner, describing the historical development of neuroimaging techniques without taking a particular viewpoint.

TONE AND BALANCE

Are there viewpoints that are over represented, or under represented,?

As the text focuses on historical facts, there are no specific viewpoints or opinions overrepresented or underrepresented.

Are the sources current?

When looking through the article, it seems that the sources are pretty current, and all of them are related to the topic.

SOURCES AND REFERENCES

Do the links work?

'''Clicking on the links works perfectly fine. All links are accurate and are also related to the topic.'''

Is the content added well organized?

The content is presented in a chronological order, which is a logical and organized structure for describing the historical development of neuroimaging techniques.

ORGANIZATION

Is the Content added well written?

The content is well-written and provides clear explanations of the historical developments.

Our images well captioned?

'''When looking at the images, all of them seem well captioned. Some could be more complex images, and not as bland, but the images provided are good.'''

IMAGES AND MEDIA

Are the images visually appealing?

Yes, the images are visually appealing, and I related to the topic in the article.

OVERALL IMPRESSIONS

Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article, is the article more complete?

'''The content about the historical development of neuroimaging techniques adds valuable context and information to an article on neuroimaging. It enhances the article's completeness by providing insights into the evolution of these techniques. Additionally, if any specific sources or references are used in the article, it's important to properly cite them.'''