User:Miaprado/Gustatory nucleus/Tdalv98 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

 * I am reviewing MarshNak, Miaprado, AJS1998, Aouwerkerk, Akashpatel98, Asaeed10
 * Link to draft you're reviewing: Gustatory nucleus

Lead
Guiding questions:


 * There has been new content added. (Typed in question's place)
 * The introductory sentence is concise but maybe adding in a phrase to define what the solitary nucleus is would help orient the reader a little bit more as to what the gustatory nucleus is discussing. (Typed in question's place)
 * There is only one other major section, which mean you may want to add in more sections, but yes the Lead does mention the other section. (Typed in question's place)
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? Yes, but only briefly mentioning it to put the subject in context but otherwise no.
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? The lead is consice and flowed well when I read it to myself both aloud and in my head.

Lead evaluation

 * There has been new content added.
 * The introductory sentence is concise but maybe adding in a phrase to define what the solitary nucleus is would help orient the reader a little bit more as to what the gustatory nucleus is discussing.
 * There is only one other major section, which mean you may want to add in more sections, but yes the Lead does mention the other section.
 * The Lead does include information that is not present in the article only to put the subject in context at the beginning.
 * The lead is consice and flowed well when I read it to myself both aloud and in my head.

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic? Yes.
 * Is the content added up-to-date? Yes (see dates of citations)
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? I personally don't know anything about the subject of the article, but the content seems brief to me. I think when you add more sections this issue will resolve itself.

Content evaluation

 * The content added is relevant and seems relatively up to date. The earliest source was from the 90s and the rest are from 2000 or above. I personally don't know anything about the subject of the article, but the amount of content does seem brief to me. I think when you add more sections this issue will resolve itself.

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? Yes, the mechanism explanation and other definitions are very well covered; however I always feel like these kinds of articles have some type of reference to where the research came from i.e. how it was discovered.
 * Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another? No.

Tone and balance evaluation

 * The content added is a neutral tone and doesn't impart any viewpoint on the reader. The mechanism explanation and other definitions are very well covered; however I always feel like these kinds of articles have some type of reference to where the research came from i.e. how it was discovered and some history behind it.

Sources and References
Guiding questions:


 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? Yes, the only place I see that could use references would be the first paragraph of the mechanism section unless that info is all from citation #3.
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? Yes.
 * Are the sources current? Yes.
 * Check a few links. Do they work? Yes.

Sources and references evaluation

 * The only place I see that could use references would be the first paragraph of the mechanism section unless that info is all from citation #3. The sources cover a wide range and do appear to be a thorough representation of the information given, but adding more sections will require more references. The sources are current and the links do work.

Organization
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? Yes.
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors? I did not find any.
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? No. Only two sections.

Organization evaluation

 * The content right now only has the Lead and a Mechanism section so it does flow well but make sure to keep that same flow when finishing up the article. I did not see any gramatical or spelling errors. There is only two sections so well-organized is a stretch but I guess that yes it is organized.

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


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic?
 * Are images well-captioned?
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations?
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way?

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

Overall impressions
Guiding questions:


 * Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete?
 * What are the strengths of the content added?
 * How can the content added be improved?

Overall evaluation

 * This article is slowly growing it seems, given the page was created in 2008. From the editing history it is clear that this group has added a decent amount of information and citations. I think the material they added is very good as I realized this writing could have been from a textbook which is good for a wikipedia article I assume. I would say that more material should be added as the page is pretty brief as is. Like I mentioned above, a history of research section could be cool. Other possibilities for subsections could be clinical applications for example. In summation I think the content added is a good start and is done well. The page looks nice and is cited well with links working and all. I would say just to keep up this same level of work when finishing out the rest of the article and it will end up coming together very nicely. Good job so far guys!