User:At00naSammich/History of the location of the soul/Thewiecker Peer Review

Peer review
This is where you will complete your peer review exercise. Please use the following template to fill out your review.

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing? (provide username): At00naSammich
 * Link to draft you're reviewing: History of the location of the soul

Lead
Guiding questions:


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer?- Yes
 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?- Not exactly, but it's a good lead sentence
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?- For the most part yes, I would add a sentence in about Ancient Egypt, Rene Descartes and Traditional Chinese Medicine.
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?- Yes, the modern day sentence about the neuroscientists that deal with the body and the mind
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?- Concise and very well done

==== Lead evaluation: Need to add some background on Ancient Egypt, Rene Descartes and Traditional Chinese Medicine and also, if you're gonna leave the sentence about the modern day article, add some information in with it in the content. (Minor changes) ====

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic?- Yes, gives the background of the philosophers and how it ties into the soul
 * Is the content added up-to-date?- Yes, last updated on December 4th, 2020
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?- not necessarily
 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics?- Yes, I would definitely add more information for Epicurus, Thomas Aquinas, and Rene Descartes to get a better flow of the article as far as length goes.

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral?- Yes
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?- I think a little of Galen is a little over presented in the focus of nature, but other than that, some other places need extra representation (mainly just the topics I posted above), but other than that, it's good.
 * Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?- No, I feel like it's really neutral. Good job!

Sources and References
Guiding questions:


 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?- I think so, yes.
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?- Yes
 * Are the sources current?- Yes, two of the 17 sources are before the year 2000 so all are current and relevant.
 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible?- Yes, seems to be both men and women with diverse authors in there.
 * Check a few links. Do they work?- Yes

Organization
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?- For the most part, yes, I would concise the articles of Herophilos and Galen simply because they're pretty long and some of the information needs to be cut down/
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors?- not that I could see, no.
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?- Yes, I really liked how the topic is organized

Images and Media
Guiding questions: If your peer added images or media


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic?- Yes, I would add more though, since there is only 2 seen.
 * Are images well-captioned?- Yes
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations?- I think so, yes.
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way?- I would add a main one where the first picture is and drop the first picture to the section about Galen, but otherwise, yes.

For New Articles Only
If the draft you're reviewing is a new article, consider the following in addition to the above.


 * Does the article meet Wikipedia's Notability requirements - i.e. Is the article supported by 2-3 reliable secondary sources independent of the subject?
 * How exhaustive is the list of sources? Does it accurately represent all available literature on the subject?
 * Does the article follow the patterns of other similar articles - i.e. contain any necessary infoboxes, section headings, and any other features contained within similar articles?
 * Does the article link to other articles so it is more discoverable?

Overall impressions
Guiding questions:


 * Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete?- As far as I can tell, yes.
 * What are the strengths of the content added?- Added information in areas which needed it and edited others. Good job.
 * How can the content added be improved?- Just improve the balance between some of the philosophers and the tone overall. Other than that, I thought it was really good information.