User:Miaprado/Gustatory nucleus/Nrcsikai 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) /  MarshNak, Miaprado, AJS1998, Aouwerkerk, Akashpatel98, Asaeed10
 * Link to draft you're reviewing: Gustatory nucleus

Lead
Guiding questions:


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer? Yes.
 * 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? No.
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? No.
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? Concise.

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic? Yes.
 * Is the content added up-to-date? Yes, but could still be more modern, it is within 10 years old, maybe look for newer findings unless unavailable.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? Content belongs there. Add more information abut structure, location and how the mechanism works and what exactly this does for us in real life, how is it relevant to us.

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral? Yes, content is unbiased.
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? No controversial claims and positions.
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? Not at the moment, just needs more content in general to fully represent and give the reader information on this topic.
 * Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another? No persuasion techniques used.

Sources and References
Guiding questions:


 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? Yes, backed up so far by peer-reviewed and tested sources.
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? Yes, all content is from experimental research, case studies and recent updated textbook additions.
 * Are the sources current? Yes, within 10 years, still can look for newer sources if available.
 * Check a few links. Do they work? The links worked.

Organization
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? Yes content is concise and is clear.
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors? No need to capitalize thalamus, especially when you are not capitalizing other brain structures.
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? So far well organized.

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


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic? No, can add pictures based on mechanisms and functions however fairly easily.
 * Are images well-captioned? No images yet.
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations? No images yet.
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way? No images yet.

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, article is supported by at least 2-3 references.
 * How exhaustive is the list of sources? Does it accurately represent all available literature on the subject? Very spread out on sources, so the article is covering many different sources for reliable information. Good.
 * Does the article follow the patterns of other similar articles - i.e. contain any necessary info boxes, section headings, and any other features contained within similar articles? No it does not copy other articles.
 * Does the article link to other articles so it is more discoverable? The article has three links created, can do some more with references to other brain structures and topics mention, like the thalamus and taste.

Overall impressions
Guiding questions:


 * Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete? Content added so far is good and definitley makes the topic article better. Needs more still.
 * What are the strengths of the content added? The strengths as of now are the language and flow of the article. Very concise and explains and links what brain structures are used and associated with gustation. Also commendable is the introduction to the article, it is not to long and tells me enough about the article that I can get a quick summary and still get more specific information in later sections, (once it is added).
 * How can the content added be improved? The content added can be improved by simply adding more sections as of now. Right now there is only mechanisms added, so structures and functions and even the history behind the brain structure canbe added to better improve the overall topic page.

Overall evaluation
Good so far, just needs more.