User:Emelydd/Occipital gyri/Casey waggett 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? Emelydd
 * Link to draft you're reviewing: Occipital gyri
 * When I examined Emelydd's User page https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Emelydd/Occipital_gyri&oldid=914903596, Emelydd had a list of 6 sources with the journal article titles. However there were no reviews of the articles and no synopsis of what the articles discussed.

Lead
Guiding questions:


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer?
 * There is no Lead section of this article.
 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?
 * There is not an introductory sentence, there is very little information on this topic.
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
 * The article lacks all major sections. The article consists of 5 sentences.
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
 * No it does not because there is no Lead at all.
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?
 * The lead is nonexistent.

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic?
 * Yes the content is relevant to the topic however it is not fully developed. It is difficult to understand the purpose of the article.
 * Is the content added up-to-date?
 * The content is not up to date, a majority of the article uses information from an article published in 1977.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
 * There is content that is missing, such as the function of the occipital gyri, how it was discovered, etc.

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral?
 * Yes.
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
 * No they are facts.
 * 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.

Sources and References
Guiding questions:


 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? There is no new content from Emelydd.
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
 * The sources are not thorough. There is very likely more information on this subject especially from the recent years.
 * Are the sources current?
 * No they are not.
 * Check a few links. Do they work?
 * Yes they all work.

Organization
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? The information is concise however it is not clear, there is no structure to the article. It would be helpful to insert subtitles to help readers understand the direction of the page.
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors?
 * I do not see any grammatical or spelling errors.
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?
 * It is not well organized.

Images and Media
Guiding questions: If your peer added images or media


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic?
 * Yes it does, it would be helpful to include some more.
 * Are images well-captioned?
 * Yes.
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations?
 * Yes it does.
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way?
 * They are placed in the top corner in a visually appealing way.

Overall impressions
Guiding questions:


 * Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete?
 * According to the revision history only 4 edits have been made to the page in the last two months. Only two of the edits included adding new information to the article. Thus the article is slightly more complete however overall the article requires a lot more work.
 * What are the strengths of the content added?
 * Emelydd has not made any edits to the article. Ambikakhuranna made an edit that included a citation which was a strength of the article because there were only 2 sources previously.
 * How can the content added be improved?
 * Information about the function, development in teens and adults, the discovery, current/past studies on the OcG and interesting facts could be added to this page to improve the content. Additionally I would recommend inserting subtitles and organizing the article to be structures so that readers can more easily find and understand the content.

Overall evaluation
==== The article does a good job showing a diagram of the OcG, however this edit was not made by any of my classmates. This article has not impressed me, it looks as though only two students have made any edits onto the page. I would suggest that the author uses the sources that the author found and inserted on their user page into the article. Additionally I would recommend an introductory sentence before inserting new information or readers may become overwhelmed and lost. Adding more information in a structured manner would be an improvement because the article currently has no structure and very little information. The most important thing the author could do to improve this article would be to spend time inserting relevant sources which describe at least the function of the OcG. Additionally the new sources should be put into the article in an organized manner with subtitles. ====