User:Mfs2162/Affective neuroscience/Ronesiur Peer Review

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing?

Mfs2162


 * Link to draft you're reviewing
 * User:Mfs2162/Affective neuroscience


 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)
 * Affective neuroscience

Lead

 * Lead accurately references included data.
 * The lead is concise and clearly describes the article.
 * Information in the lead is expanded upon later in the article.

Content

 * Content added was relevant and up-to-date.
 * Technically the information presented is universally applicable, so it does address topics related to historically underrepresented populations.

Tone and Balance

 * Content is neutral.
 * Information is presented in an informative manner.
 * Content does not promote any particular position.

Sources and References

 * Sources do include some primary sources, but this is neuroscience.
 * Citations accurately reflect content.
 * Sources are written by diverse populations.

Organization

 * Content is well written and does not contain grammatical errors.
 * The organization is clear and flows well.
 * The use of the word "attenuate" may not be the best. This word is a little more abstract. Using "dampen" might be better.

Overall impressions

 * Changes have improved the overall quality of the article.
 * Strengths include adding additional content to role of the different parts of the brain in regulating emotion and adding additional sources. Although subject matter is more complex, you were able to break it down well for a typical reader.
 * Other than what was mentioned above, it might be interesting to explore a little more about the impact that damage to these different areas of the brain present in different populations. However, this type of input might go beyond the scope of this article.