User:Beep445/Evolutionary neuroscience/Adrian.JAC Peer Review

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing?

Beep445, SamiraYoussef1 ,  Peanutbutter.05


 * Link to draft you're reviewing
 * User:Beep445/Evolutionary neuroscience


 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)
 * Evolutionary neuroscience

(This is the group peer review from the team Neuroconstructivism)

Evaluate the drafted changes

 * The improved grammer and ease of use for the user (such as added links to researcher's pages on their name) make the article more pleasant to read.


 * Changing paragraph structure and segmenting different chunks of information into different segments also aids in a positive readability experience.


 * Editing the capitalization of headings was a good touch in order to comply with wiki code Naming conventions (capitalization), so good job.

Something we found a bit confusing:
The sentence "Although the amphioxus’s brain might seem severely underdeveloped compared its human counterparts, its nervous system was set well for its respective environment, which has allowed it to prosper for millions of years" seems a little off to me because it was like you were comparing the brain of the amphioxus to its nervous system. But this part contridicts what was mentionned before when stated that the amphioxus has an "absence of a brain". I'm not sure if it makes sense to compare the nervous system to a non-existential body part (the brain).

Not sure if it's how the Wiki Editor displays the edits, but have you included citations and references for the added information such as "The brain has three layers (triune brain): surviving, feeling and thinking". This sentence seems like you stated a fact, but I couldn't find a respective citation or reference that goes with this sentence.

The wording "This idea" in the sentence "This idea is not only for humans it is also for mammals such as rats and mice.", makes it seem like it isn't fact but a mere hypothesis?

Suggestions / Improvements
The use of examples would improve the quality of the text after making statements and theories.

Adding in-text citations can improve creditibility of these statements.

You are giving us scienfitic reasoning and facts, but we don't know where that information is coming from, such as in "when the brain uses an inadequate memory".

Suggestions / Improvements (add more details, it is vague)
It's missing examples and futher evidence to support your claims.

This sentence requires more detail. We were wondering what you meant by "the deepest layer" in the sentence: "The survival instincts are allegedly inherited from ancient reptiles, it is known as the deepest layer or the lizard brain." Please be more specific :)

Also this is pretty vague: "The Pavlovian or classic conditioning refers to using sound to describe what will happen" More revelant information will help support your cause (what fact you are trying to get across).

When you state research, we would like to know where you got that research from, a citation or a reference. "Research in molecular genetics has proven that reptiles and nonhuman mammals have very similar neurons as humans."

Grammer suggestion and quotation
In this sentence " In his book The “Descent of Man” " it looks like you missed place the quotation marks around the title of the book. The capital letter T in The looks misplaced.

Feedback on overall edits
Overall the article is really coming together! The information you guys have added is very concise and interesting. It just lacks a little clarity at parts, so adding more examples and referencing your facts and statements will do wonders on your article!