User:Gaw301/Apperceptive agnosia/Sammy Tavassoli 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? Gaw301
 * Link to draft you're reviewing: User:Gaw301/sandbox

Lead
Guiding questions:


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer? N/A
 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic? N/A
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections? N/A
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? N/A
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? N/A

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic? The content is relevant and provides details about specific case studies that build on general statements about the effects of different kinds of apperceptive agnosias.
 * Is the content added up-to-date? Much of the content was drawn from sources written prior to 2010, but because it regarded specific case studies, I don't believe this was a major deficit. There just might have been a problem with newer findings related to tactile/olfactory agnosia and patient ELM's case not being included.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? All of the content was relevant to the article topic :) Some of the technical details about the case studies might have just been a bit much for a general public audience.

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral? Most of the content was taken from (secondary source) textbook chapters, which provided neutral and sometimes up-to-date content. One source was an older case study, but it wasn't presented as outwardly biased information intended to promote a certain agenda to the public.
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? None of the claims were heavily biased. But the claims about the first tactile agnosia case study may have been unduly influenced by author bias.
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? Excluding the last point mentioned, no :)
 * Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another? The content itself does not draw original conclusions beyond what was stated in the sources (i.e. it was not written persuasive-essay style).

Sources and References
Guiding questions:


 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? Some of the content was taken from case studies, but that was made clear in the article, as much of the research on apperceptive agnosia relies on case studies specifically. Most content was from textbook readings though.
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? The sources reflect the conclusions about each of the case studies well. The information from the textbook chapters was also a thorough summary of olfactory agnosia and patient ELM.
 * Are the sources current? The sources, unfortunately, are not very current, most being published before 2010.
 * Check a few links. Do they work? Some of the links lead to articles that are not open access :( All worked though!

Organization
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? No, some of the content included a lot of technical terms related to agnosias without explanations or links to Wikipedia articles on them. The section on olfactory agnosia was good though!
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors? Most of the content was fine, but there were a few confusing run-on sentences, and some of the words were weirdly capitalized.
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? The content is broken down into relevant sections.

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


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

Overall impressions
Guiding questions:


 * Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete? The article has more complete information about two case studies relevant to apperceptive agnosias, along with a new section on olfactory agnosia :) The new section makes for a great overview/start to a larger section!
 * What are the strengths of the content added? The new content was relevant and provided peer-reviewed, mostly neutral information about two case studies.
 * How can the content added be improved? Although it provided the neural explanation of patient ELM's condition, it did so in a technical way that could use better explanations. Additionally, the tactile apperceptive agnosia part was a bit confusing to read :(