User:Delshad7/Neuroenhancement/Anushkagk Peer Review

General info
Delshad7
 * Whose work are you reviewing?


 * Link to draft you're reviewing
 * User:Delshad7/Neuroenhancement
 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)
 * Neuroenhancement

Evaluate the drafted changes
The evaluation of the draft is offered below:

Lead
The lead paragraph provides interesting details about the article, and ensues a neutral tone to the meaning and application of neuroenhancement. Although, mentioning "neuroethics" in the lead section of the article, since neuroenhancement is an offshoot of neuroethics would make this section seem more well-rounded.

Invasive and Non-Invasive Techniques
The Invasive and Non-Invasive techniques mentioned provide a relevant addition to the main article. The techniques are evidence-based and neutrally laid out. The information is concise and comprehensive, and fits well with the main article theme for this section.

Neuroenhancement in Surgical Practice
This section offers a new insight to the main article. The process of Transcranial Direct Current Stimulation (tCDS) is explained well. Although, if any studies documenting the downside or ill aftereffects have been published, adding that literature could provide a more holistic view to the process. If not, this content plugs in well with the main article too.

Ethical Considerations in Neuroenhancement
This section provides a crucial look into the possible flipside of neuroenhancement. This is a very important addition to the main article, and has been explained extremely effectively. The tonality is well balanced too. If any more literature is available, it would be interesting to read an elaboration to the evidence-based possible risks. But overall this section adds a good balance to the article.

Public and Clinical Perspectives to Neuroenhancement
This section of the draft is interesting and keeps up with the current take on neuroenhancement. Since it is a fairly new field in the cognitive sciences, adding any more literature or elaboration to the surveys mentioned would enhance this section further. But if not, this section offers a unique take on the perspectives of the application of neuroenhancement. Adding this section will surely elevate the quality of the main article. Good job.

General Outline and Content
The article has a good flow, and is structured well. There are no grammatical errors, and the statements added from the citations are framed well by the author. Overall, they don't challenge WikiEdu's standards set for building and adding content to the article. The article is etched well and the language is user-friendly. Scientific terminologies have been linked to their respective Wikipedia articles.

Additional Feedback
Overall, the topic chosen is very fascinating, and the information chosen to be added to the main article is very relevant to modern cognitive sciences and the field of robotics too. Talking about the ethical considerations, and clinical and public takes on the application of neuroenhancement is a wonderful way to balance the tone of the entire article. Great job with that!

What I believe would make the article more interesting would be to review the history of neuroenhancement. It is a fairly recent branch of study, thus providing evidence and resources should fit the WikiEdu standards.

Irrespective of the suggested changes, the draft proves to be an important addition to the main article of Neuroenhancement. Great job again! Good luck!