User:Emelydd/Occipital gyri/Annakaji 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

 * I am reviewing the work of Emelydd, MillerNick, Lunnem, Ambikakhurana, Cescilyjo, & Sarinisaksena.
 * Link to draft you're reviewing: Occipital gyri

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? Yes
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections? No, the article has no sections.
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? No, there is no information other than the Lead in this article.
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? It is concise.

Lead evaluation
Good lead, but doesn't support rest of article because there is no rest of article to summarize.

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic? Yes
 * Is the content added up-to-date? Yes
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? There just needs to be more content.

Content evaluation
There's not much, but the content that's there is good.

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral? Yes
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? No
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? No
 * Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another? No

Tone and balance evaluation
Good tone & balance.

Sources and References
Guiding questions:


 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? Yes
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? Yes
 * Are the sources current? No, the 3rd source is from 1977
 * Check a few links. Do they work? The first link doesn't work. The others do.

Sources and references evaluation
1st source needs a functional link & 3rd source is not current.

Organization
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? Yes
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors? No
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? No, no sections

Organization evaluation
Once more content is added, there should be clear sections, such as "components," "development," "discovery," and so on.

Images and Media (N/A)
Guiding questions: If your peer added images or media


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic?
 * Are images well-captioned?
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations?
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way?

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? Yes
 * What are the strengths of the content added? It is from a reliable source & is concise.
 * How can the content added be improved? It's good, but more content is needed in general.

Overall evaluation
Emelydd, MillerNick, Cescilyjo, & Sarinisaksena haven't added anything. The Lead is good, but doesn't support rest of article because there is no rest of article to summarize. There's not much content, but what's there is good. There is good tone & balance. The first source needs a functional link & the third source is not current (1977). Once more content is added, there should be clear sections, such as "components," "development," "discovery," and so on. The content added has improved the overall quality of the article, is concise, and is from a reliable source. It's good, but more content is needed in general.