User:FormallyTrainedHomunculus/Neurodiversity/Morrisse95 Peer Review

General info
Morrisse95 reviewing Formally Trained Homunculus
 * Whose work are you reviewing?
 * Link to draft you're reviewing:User:FormallyTrainedHomunculus/Neurodiversity
 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists):Neurodiversity

Evaluate the drafted changes
(Compose a detailed peer review here, considering each of the key aspects listed above if it is relevant. Consider the guiding questions, and check out the examples of what feedback looks like.)

Lead: There is no lead into the article, which could be added to help a reader know where to go within the article. It would be helpful to add a more neutral tone to the lead and give the article some direction as well.

Content:

The content that you wrote is very well written, What you have written is can be perceived as being persuasive so be careful, I would rewrite it to be more neutral..

Tone and balance:

The information added to the article is coming off argumentative and persuasive to your beliefs, I would changing the wording on it. You do not want to the article to be combative, but informational and straight to the fact.

Organization:

The article is concise on organization and easy to read no grammatical mistakes that I recognized. Just be aware of tone, but it is easy to read and understand.

References:

The references are very recent which is wonderful and means that it is the most up to date. If there is more references to add for in text citations like the "ABA" then I would include it.

Images:

If there is more images you can add then wonderful, otherwise, the images on the article already are great.

The articles new information has a wonderful reference section that has met Wikipedia's notability requirements.

Over all, the information that you have added is very informative and provides knowledge that the original article did not have.