User:Jhelbing/Magnocellular red nucleus/RaubieR 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 Jhelbing work.
 * Link to draft you're reviewing: Magnocellular red nucleus

Lead evaluation:
I think it does a good job of being very clear/concise. But, it would be helpful if the flow of this section was alittle better. For instance the last two sentences went from RN capabilities straight to its' evolutionary history. There needs to be some type of transition between them so they can connect easily and will not confuse the reader.

Content evaluation
The content added all seems to be very relevant to the topic and is up to date. But, the article would benefit from the addition of more information/ elaboration as sometimes the paragraphs tend to state things and move from one idea to the next (an example of this is mentioned in my lead evaluation).

Tone and balance evaluation
The content added does convey a neutral tone and looks to be 100% informative.

Sources and references evaluation
There are many resources that the article provides. But, more references are needed to back up some of the information they cite/ needs a more even spread of references throughout the article because I see most of the citation in the introductory section and rarely any after that.

Organization and Images/Media evaluation
The article is pretty clear overall. But, I think that there is some pieces of jargon that could confuse readers who are looking at the article for only general or surface level information. For instance the mention of "40-μm glycolmethacrylate sections" and "nervus oculomotorius". These are things that maybe people who have learned about this may know, but most likely not general readers/viewers. Also, the image used is not cited/ clearly incorporated into the article itself despite its caption describing what it is/ I'd like to know the purpose behind this image in relation to the article.

Overall evaluation:
I think that overall the article provides some general information about the topic. But, it will be helpful if more information and references were added for certain pieces of information and to rearrange some of the sentence structures in the article. The one area that I noticed the most was the second section about neuron counts. It mentions the use of the Cavalieri's method, but it did not clearly explain what it is/ how it works. If the sentence before this was mentioned is how the Cavalieri's method works, then a simple re-arrangement of the two sentences will do (The specific sentences being: "An analysis of complete sets of serial 40-μm glycolmethacrylate sections can be used to find this number. By using Cavalieri's method, the total volume of the red nucleus can be estimated"). Also, when mentioning this method, there should also be a source for this as well that readers can click on if they are interested in understand the method more.