User:Casey waggett/Median raphe nucleus/EleanorJeakle 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? Yoosername, Gabiglassen, Casey wagget, Vnvital
 * Link to draft you're reviewing: Median raphe nucleus

Lead

 * The article has no major sections; all information is included in the lead.
 * The lead is not a summary of important information in the article. It is a list of summaries of different sources. Sentences often have no relation to the previous sentence. It has not been synthesized into a coherent section to read.

Lead evaluation
Create body sections in the article and replace this lead with a coherent summary of those.

Content

 * The article leans heavily on emerging research, but does not distinguish it well from older research. Studies from the 1970s are presented without discussion of any followup research and alongside studies from the 2010s.
 * Accepted fundamentals are minimally covered. The bulk of the article is summaries of experiments, which are relied upon to describe what the nucleus does.

Content evaluation
Spend more time on fundamental and accepted knowledge. Include emerging research in the research section. Do not include old research as emerging research. Instead of listing studies, synthesize your reading into a coherent description of the topic.

Tone and Balance

 * The article does not appear to include the author's own ideas.

Tone and balance evaluation
Good work.

Sources and References

 * All content is well cited.
 * Searching "raphe nuclei" will turn up much accepted knowledge on the raphe nuclei. Accepted information should be relied upon more than emerging research.
 * Some of the sources are older, but presented as emerging research.
 * The sources all work.

Sources and references evaluation
Try to only present new research as such. Look for more fundamental and accepted knowledge about the raphe nuclei.

Organization

 * The article uses highly technical language taken from its sources, even when plain language would be more appropriate. The average person could not understand the introduction to the lead section without googling terminology.
 * Small words such as articles are sometimes missing, and verbs do not always agree with their subjects.
 * There is only one body section (research), which covers only one topic. A significant portion of information that could go in the research section is only mentioned in the lead section. The level of detail in this section and the lead section is similar.

Organization evaluation
Add body sections, use plainer language, and be more careful with grammar.

Images and media evaluation
A picture of the brain structure, with the MnR and DnR labelled could help some readers visualize the structure you describe.

Overall evaluation
Some interesting research has been added, but the article lacks a coherent description of the fundamentals of this topic.