User:Jhelbing/Magnocellular red nucleus/MarshNak 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) I am reviewing the work of my classmates: Jpfinkelstein, Khyatipatel98, Okonmahvictor, Michael Newman29, and Leeorharel
 * Link to draft you're reviewing: Magnocellular red nucleus

Lead
Guiding questions:


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer? Yes, slight updates of new changes.
 * 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? The article doesn't have a ton of sections, but most are mentioned within the lead.
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?  No.
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? It is fairly concise.

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic? Yes, all added content relates to the main topic of the page.
 * Is the content added up-to-date? Yes most articles cited are within the last 30 years with the oldest being from 1988.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? There's nothing that doesn't belong, some more content could be added, but the changes are a good start.

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 the article is fairly impartial.
 * Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another? No

Sources and References
Guiding questions:


 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? All additions are cited.
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? Various medical and scientific journals and books are used.
 * Are the sources current? Yes, most articles cited are within the last 30 years with the oldest being from 1988.
 * Check a few links. Do they work? Yes, every link I clicked worked.

Organization
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? Some parts are a bit drawn out and wordy, overall the article is easy to read.
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors? Not that I saw.
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? The subsections are a bit specific but match with the content given.

Images and Media
Guiding questions: If your peer added images or media [no images added up to date]


 * 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

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?  Yes.
 * How exhaustive is the list of sources? Does it accurately represent all available literature on the subject? There are possible more sources to add.
 * 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?  Yes
 * Does the article link to other articles so it is more discoverable? Yes.

Overall impressions
Guiding questions:


 * Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete? Yes, the additions have improved the quality of the article.
 * What are the strengths of the content added? Since the article was new, any new info is valuable to building the article.  The info was all cited and clearly explained.
 * How can the content added be improved? The article will improve from continued additions and growth.  As more citations and info is added, the article will improve.

==== Overall evaluation: As a start on a new article the additions are on the right track. The information is clear and balanced and all cited. Some images would improve the article. Over time as more information is added the article will increase in straighten. ====