User:NanukStorm11/Triune brain/Mattfed Peer Review

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing? NanukStorm11, Jellybean salad, JoshLeblanc.
 * Link to draft you're reviewing
 * Editing User:NanukStorm11/Triune brain - Wikipedia
 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)
 * Triune brain - Wikipedia
 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)
 * Triune brain - Wikipedia

Evaluate the drafted changes
(Compose a detailed peer review here, considering each of the key aspects listed above if it is relevant. Consider the guiding questions and check out the examples of what feedback looks like.)

All of the information throughout the article was relevant to the overall topic of the article. The reading thoroughly demonstrated facts / claims from the different views based off of the main topic, which in the end made the article neutral, and therefore no bias was created. The citations (links) that the group inputted into the article are all working, and the citations added also help with the support of the different claims seen in the article. All of the facts and ideas stated throughout the article seemed to be appropriate and when a reference was added, it came from a reliable source, being the book by Lisa Feldman Barrett, for example, which is indeed reliable. This is mostly where the information came from, which was added by the group, which is still very good since it is a neutral source being made up of ideas that are on both sides of the main topic. Everything that was added into the article from the group was not out of date, since the book that was referenced was published in 2020, which is fairly new.

After reading over the entire article, there were still no points that seem to have to be changed due to the fact that all the edits made from the group were done properly, and they fixed all the issues that were already present.