User:Hermp9348/Dream/Sydney,schroeder0725 Peer Review

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing?

Hermp9348


 * Link to draft you're reviewing
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Hermp9348/Dream?veaction=edit&preload=Template%3ADashboard.wikiedu.org_draft_template


 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)

Evaluate the drafted changes
Overall, the article changes benefited the article. A lot of work went into this. Good job!

1) Is everything in the article relevant to the article topic? Is there anything that distracted you?

I think everything that was written in this sandbox fits well into the topic. I do not think any of the information is irrelevant.

2) Is the article neutral? Are there any claims, or frames, that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?

I would say the article was neutral. There are multiple viewpoints and they are eacj individually built upon.

3) Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?

I think the viewpoints were equally represented. There are perspectives of psychology, cognitive scientology, neuroscience, and philosophy. So, there was a range of different perspectives.

4) Check the citations. Do the links work? Does the source support the claims in the article?

The links do work and the sources seem applicable for this topic.

5) Is each fact supported by an appropriate, reliable reference? Where does the information come from? Are these neutral sources? If biased, is that bias noted?

The source of facts are from reliable references, however, there are outdated references. I would maybe find sources that are closer to our year and not from 2000. There does not seem to have biases from references. I would also look at why there is a weird box underneath your stated references.