User:Birdie2324/Split-brain/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.)

Within this draft, there is no inclusion of an introduction or in other terms they have not added change to the introduction in their draft. Within their lead, the is not a brief summary or overview of the information provided. 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 the correct evidence and citation. I would however increase the amount of references they possess, as I believe there is more than they included. 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.