User:Nathanyalross/Illusory continuity of tones/Kylee.roush 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 had a hard time telling if the edits made were the new paragraphs or if I am supposed to review the one with the graph)

 * Whose work are you reviewing? (provide username)
 * Nathanyalross
 * Link to draft you're reviewing:
 * User:Nathanyalross/Illusory continuity of tones

Lead
Guiding questions:


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer?
 * Not that I can tell
 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?
 * Yes, it gives an overarching description for what is later broken down
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
 * Not really, I think there could be a sentence added to allude to the upcoming major sections.
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
 * No, it seems that two paragraphs were added which helped to add in information that had previously been missing.
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?
 * I think the lead does a good job at giving details that are crucial to the overall understanding without being overly detailed or distracting.

==== Lead evaluation: Overall, I think that the lead does a good job at introducing the information of the article. Although nothing was added to the lead I think that the information added later helped to increase the accuracy of what the lead outlined for the concepts of the article. ====

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic?
 * Yes, it adds information that was presented in the lead but missing in the article.
 * Is the content added up-to-date?
 * Yes
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
 * I think the content added is missing from the published article. But, the new paragraphs that I can see in the sandbox seem to coincide with the article well.
 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics?
 * It broadened the topic from a simple definition to an entire article.

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral?
 * Yes
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
 * No, all claims are backed by cited research/investigations.
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
 * No
 * Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?
 * No, the content added works to provide relevance.

Sources and References
Guiding questions:


 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
 * Not that I can see.
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
 * Yes
 * Are the sources current?
 * I would say that they are current for the topic at hand. I doubt that there is a large source of current research on this topic so I think the cited articles are recent enough for the topic.
 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible?
 * The sources come from many different journals ranging from things on neurology to research on auditory illusion specifically.
 * Check a few links. Do they work?
 * Yes

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?
 * None that are overly distracting. Check placement of commas.
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?
 * Yes, I liked how you organized the information added.

Images and Media
Guiding questions: If your peer added images or media--didn't see any added media


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

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

Overall impressions
Guiding questions:


 * Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete?
 * Yes, I like how you added information to make sure that the lead didn't present information that was never expanded on.
 * What are the strengths of the content added?
 * It added relevance to a topic that can seem unimportant/inconsequential
 * How can the content added be improved?
 * I think you did a good job, make sure to cite where you are getting your information. Maybe you did, I just couldn't find new citations.

==== Overall evaluation: I think your contributions did a nice job on expanding the topic past a simple definition. You managed to add relevance and expand the information to other areas of knowledge such as its impact on the brain. ====