User:Hongjoo (Angela)/Sensory gating/Ws1351 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)
 * Hongjoo (Angela)
 * Link to draft you're reviewing: User:Hongjoo (Angela)/sandbox

Lead
Guiding questions:


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer?
 * lead has been left the same
 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?
 * yes
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
 * yes
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
 * no
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?
 * concise enough to follow and grasp for later material

Lead evaluation
Not much to evaluate in terms of your edits! it gives a strong background and enough information so that someone who isn't backed in stem can still understand.

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic?
 * yes
 * Is the content added up-to-date?
 * yes, all within 2019/2020
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
 * no

Content evaluation
The new studies you added in are very compelling and gives a new perspective and application for the aforementioned discussions.

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral?
 * somewhat, I feel like writer biases the research a little
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
 * again, somewhat biased toward research, such as in the schizo section
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
 * not to my knowledge! everything seem pretty even
 * Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?
 * slightly, I would refrain from using phrases like "contrary to most beliefs"!

Tone and balance evaluation
Light floral text that offers a slight bias.

Sources and References
Guiding questions:


 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
 * yes
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
 * yes
 * Are the sources current?
 * yes
 * Check a few links. Do they work?
 * yes

Sources and references evaluation
sources look great! checked out a few of the article as well due to personal interest.

Organization
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
 * yes
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors?
 * not that i can see
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?
 * yes, the organization is very easy to follow

Organization evaluation
i like the way your sections are organized! if helped me to self contain information without getting overwhelmed.

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


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic?
 * yes
 * Are images well-captioned?
 * yes, very concise
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations?
 * yes
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way?
 * yes, it is where it is most helpful

Images and media evaluation
the inclusion of an image really helped for me to visualize what the test may have looked like!

For New Articles Only
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?
 * yes
 * What are the strengths of the content added?
 * research based back up of preexisting information + more content in general
 * How can the content added be improved?
 * perhaps by adding in some more explanations of neural mechanisms of sensory gating?

Overall evaluation
I really like how you found research that would help you to build upon pre-existing information! this was well edited and you did a good job to overall make sure things were unbiased.