User:Jagerismydogsname7151/User:Turtleumd123/Neurobiological effects of physical exercise/Jagerismydogsname7151 Peer Review

General info
Turtleumd123
 * Whose work are you reviewing?


 * Link to the draft you're reviewing:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Turtleumd123/Neurobiological_effects_of_physical_exercise?veaction=edit&preload=Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org_draft_template
 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists):Neurobiological effects of physical exercise

Lead

 * The lead that you have is great, however, the article that you are editing already has a very long and detailed lead. Maybe you could look into finding sources to back up the lead that is already created.
 * The first sentence that you have for the lead is very good in the sense that it grabs the reader's attention, however, an increase in blood flow would be considered an impact that exercise has on the body. Maybe you could switch this up to say something along the lines of how in addition to impacts on the body, it also impacts neurological activity.
 * You do a great job of including sections of the body of the article in your lead!
 * The lead does not include information that is not present in the article!
 * Your lead is good in the sense that it relays all necessary information, however, it might be beneficial to use a more concise sentence structure but provide more information.

Content

 * I think that the content that you are writing is very relevant to the topic that you are writing about.
 * I am not sure if the content is up to date or not due to the sources not being cited properly. As long as the sources are from after 2013 (although the newer the better), it should be good.
 * To me, it looks as if you are starting to write a new article from scratch instead of adding on to the existing one. What you have written is awesome, however, it is stuff that is already talked about in the existing article. It may be beneficial to look for some additional content.
 * This article does not deal with equity gaps, however, if you wanted to you could maybe add a section about how not all people have proper access to workout equipment, or maybe they don't have the time to work out. You could talk about demographics related to this or maybe possible solutions to making workout equipment available to all.

Tone and Balance

 * The content is neutral, you do a great job of excluding bias from your content!
 * There are no biased claims.
 * Any veiwpoints expressed are expressed in the proper amount.
 * You make no attempt to persuade the reader in any wich way.

Sources and References

 * You have some sources already, but it may be beneficial to add some more. Some claims don't have a source next to them.
 * Yes, your content reflects what the sources say.
 * Yes, your sources are thorough.
 * The one article from BYU does not have a date on it, however, the other two sources seem current. It may be helpful to add a more current one instead of the article from 2014.
 * I am not sure if the articles include people from historically underrepresented groups. If they do though, thats great!
 * The only one of your sources that I wouldn't recommend using would be the one from BYU because that is more of a web page than an article, however the other two are good. I would just recommend adding some more primary literature.
 * Yes, all of the links work!

Organization

 * In terms of conciseness, it might be a good idea to use a more concise senatnce structure but provide more content to talk about.
 * Your spelling is great! Your grammar is good too, however you tend to repeat yourself a lot but just in different words.
 * It might be beneficial to organize what you are writing into different sections instead of just having a "lead" paragraph and an "article body" paragraph. The lead doesn't need a subheading, but the body of what you are writing can be broken down into several sectopns. each with a specific topic.

Images and Media

 * The original article has some great figures already! If you wanted to add more, I think it would be great and I would definitely recommend, however I dont think that it is necessary.
 * Yes, the existing images are well captioned.
 * Yes, all images are cited.
 * Yes, the images are laid out in a visually appealing way.