User:Itsashleyxu/Neuroplasticity/Orangy123 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? (Itsashleyxu)
 * Link to draft you're reviewing: User:Itsashleyxu/sandbox

Lead
Guiding questions:


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer?
 * no, make sure you include your new content in the lead section
 * 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?
 * Depends on where you plan to add your new content. If you plan to place it somewhere under one of their major sections, then you're okay. But if you create a major section out of it, then it's probably best to include a brief description in the lead part.
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
 * no
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?
 * concise

Lead evaluation
The lead is very concise and clear to follow. It is missing only one thing, which is your new content.

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic?
 * Yes
 * Is the content added up-to-date?
 * yes
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
 * no
 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics?
 * Yes, a few.

Content evaluation
Overall, the content is very clear and easy to follow along. It also contains all the relevant information related to neuroplasticity and is up-to-date. Additionally, I like how it addresses a a few underrepresented populations or topics such as blind people and ADHD. There is one section that seems a bit underdeveloped, which is neurobiology. I think there could be a little bit more information about it and explaining what it is.

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral?
 * yes
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
 * no
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
 * no
 * Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?
 * no

Tone and balance evaluation
This page seems very neutral. Nothing seems biased.

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?
 * A few of them aren't current.
 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible?
 * Yes.
 * Check a few links. Do they work?
 * Yes

Sources and references evaluation
All sources are reliable for this new content. I noticed a few sources may be outdated. But I'm not sure what the regulations are for Wikipedia. To me, anything before 2010 seems outdated. So I'd highly recommend you to talk someone in Wikipedia to double-check.

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?
 * no
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?
 * yes

Organization evaluation
Overall, the new content is well-organized. But, under vision section, the first sentence seems a bit confusing. Secondly, I think it would be better to reword "repurpose." I understand what the word itself means, but I'm not 100% sure if I understand the meaning behind it related to neuroplasticity.

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


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

Images and media evaluation
There are no added images or media.

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?

New Article Evaluation
This is not a new article.

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?
 * It is concise and easy to follow. Additionally, it focuses on an underrepresented population.
 * How can the content added be improved?
 * There's nothing else that needs to be improved except for the organization which I have already stated above.
 * There's nothing else that needs to be improved except for the organization which I have already stated above.

Overall evaluation
Overall, great work! This new content is a great addition for this article. It is clear and neutral. Once you're done rephrasing a word and sentence, this content should be good to go. Additionally, there's one section that seems a little bit underdeveloped. Perhaps a few more sentences could be added to make this overall article look more complete. Lastly, a sentence or two about your new content needs to be added in the lead section.