User:AstroWiki143/History of neuroimaging/Ph1275 Peer Review

General info
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):

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.)

Leed:


 * the lead does reflect the new content.
 * the introductory sentence is clear about the topic.
 * the lead does include a brief description about the topic and I actually found it helpful to better understand what the topic is.
 * the article does not include information that is not present in the article.


 * I believe the lead is not concise or overly detailed. I think it has a good length.

Content:


 * the content added were relevant to the topic.
 * I think the added content is up to date.
 * No part of the content felt missing or not belonging to me.
 * No the article does not deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps.

Tone and balance:


 * The added content were neutral and I think it was very nicely done.
 * No claims appeared heavily biased.
 * No views were under or overly presented.
 * No, I think the added content were useful information and not persuasive.

Sources and References:


 * All new content were backed up by a reliable secondary source.
 * I believe the content accurately reflected what was cited.
 * They do reflect available literature.
 * the sources are current
 * They sources used seemed like they were written by a diverse spectrum of authors.
 * What I was able to find were similar to what the sources used were so I believe these were good sources to be used.
 * The links do work.

Organization:


 * The content added were clear and organized, I thought this was one of the strengths of the edited article.
 * From what I tried to check when reading I didn't find any grammatical or spelling errors.
 * The sections of the articles were very well organized and sectioned.

Images and Media:


 * The article does include images that helps the reader better understand the topic.
 * The images included captions that were helpful.
 * I believe all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations.
 * All images appeared in their own sections and I thought this was very nicely done.

Overall impressions:


 * All added content I believe have improved the quality of the article and I think the article seems to be more complete now.
 * The strengths of the added content are the images and the way the new information is laid out.
 * I think the content is good they way it is but it could use some more details in the section of Lead to make it a bit more complete and longer.