User:Emelydd/Occipital gyri/Leeorharel 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? (provide username) Emelydd
 * 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? Sort of; it could be slightly more detailed
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections? no (the article has no sections other than the introduction/lead)
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? N/A
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? pretty concise

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic? N/A
 * Is the content added up-to-date? N/A
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? N/A

Content evaluation
There is technically no content, there is only the introduction/lead. This article should definitely have some content added to it.

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral? N/A
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? N/A
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? N/A
 * Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another? N/A

Tone and balance evaluation
Again, there is technically no content, there is only the introduction/lead.

Sources and References
Guiding questions:


 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? Yes, there are 3 sources that all seem reliable.
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? Yes
 * Are the sources current? One of them is from 2016, another from 1991, and another from 1977. Therefore, I would say the sources could be more recent.
 * Check a few links. Do they work? Yes

Organization
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? For what has been written, yes
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors? There was one grammatical error, which I easily was able to edit
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? N/A (no sections other than introduction/lead)

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


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic? There is an image, but it is not very clear.
 * Are images well-captioned? Yes
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations? I do not believe the image has a direct link attached, if it did then it would be directly sourced.
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way? N/A (only one image)

For New Articles Only (the article I am peer reviewing is not new, it was created many months ago)
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? N/A - there is no content besides the introduction/lead.
 * What are the strengths of the content added? N/A
 * How can the content added be improved? The article can be improved overall if there was more content added besides the introduction/lead.