User:Peanutbutter.05/Evolutionary neuroscience/Kim Brunelle Peer Review

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing?
 * Abby Abergel, Lyanna labrecque, Alexabowers, MaxiiBoii, T1xan15, BrianSintimm, Adrian030


 * Link to draft you're reviewing
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Peanutbutter.05/Evolutionary_neuroscience?veaction=edit&preload=Template%3ADashboard.wikiedu.org_draft_template


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

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.)

Lead

The lead has not been updated. However the original lead does include an introductory sentence and a clear description of what the particle is about. the article include a content box of what it will be covering. The lead states what will be covered but not a brief description. Therefore, i think it will be beneficial to add brief description of the topics the article will cover. The lead would briefly introduce certain topics of the gene, anatomy, physiology and behaviour of the brain. However, i don't believe they went into detail later on in the article to further discuss it. I think it would be good to discuss those parts to relay back to the evolution of neuroscience. The lead is consist with good amount of detail and not overly detailed.

Content

The contain added is relevant to the contain containing the cerebral cortex, however i believe there should be more data to back up for information. Since the data is correct for the reptiles brain the function is different for the human brain, so there should be clarification of the added data. Also, it would be interesting to know why the same part of the brain is different from a reptile and a human brain. Also, adding what the cerebral cortex does for the human brain can be beneficial to your edit. The context is related to the article that they've added but can go into more detail.

Tone and Balance

The content added to this article does feel natural. Brian’s addition adds detail and gives us (a reader) a better understanding of the subject. Adrian’s addition about the brain is very biased towards the idea that our brains see things that aren’t in front of us. “researchers discover that our visual perception is much closer to a construction of the brain than a direct "photograph" of what is in front of us.” I think this statement could be a bit less direct and pushy towards one idea. Also researchers should have a capital “R”. Brian does a good job at adding content to represent the idea. I feel like the overall statement that Adrian claims comes off overrepresented. The content add by all participants persuade the reader towards the idea that our brains don’t see exactly what’s in front of us.

Sources and References

The information was all sourced from Wikipedia articles, however, the group could have used third-party sources to support their ideas on Evolutionary Neuroscience. The data sourced is reliable and is justified correctly, however they could definitely have elaborated more on some of the ideas. The sources are all up to date however they lack a more complex take on the topic, the information and authors are diverse and show great variation. All the links were functional.

For new articles only- The article does require some changes to the sources used. All sources are from Wikipedia and relate to evolutionary neuroscience, they lack a variety of sources. They require more secondary sources and overall, just unbiased data.

Organization

The contented added is well written and clear, it adds description that builds ideas and supports the overall message. Yes there are some Grammar errors in the text. See below for corrections. The content added is well organized. I think that what is added is spread-out enough that organizing isn’t even necessary. Most of what was done was developing the article and less of adding ideas. In that way Organizing isn’t very difficult. The group wrote: "As knowledge of the human brain has evolved, researchers discover that our visual perception is much closer to a construction of the brain than a direct "photograph" of what is in front of us. This can lead to misperceiving certain situations or elements in the brain's attempt to keep us safe. For example, an on-edge soldier believing a young child with a stick is a grown man with a gun, as the brain's sympathetic system, or fight-or-flight mode, is activated". Reid suggests to add a capital P for "photograph" and to say "may believe" instead.

Images and Media

Their article did not add any images that would enhance the topic. However, there is one image from the original article of an animal which can be seen as either a duck or a rabbit depending on how you look at it. This image does add to the visual perception of the article, emphasizing how our brains can change what we see, especially once it is pointed out to us. “The brain can change the firing of its own neurons, therefore changing what we see.” We wouldn’t have known the image was a rabbit and a duck unless someone had pointed it out to us. Yes, the image adheres to Wikipedia’s copyright regulations, the image is taken from a different Wikipedia article about the rabbit duck picture. It is a public domain image. Yes, the image is laid out in a visually appealing way, it compliments the article and is not distracting from the text.

Overall Impression

The content added simplifies certain parts of the article, making it a bit more digestible to read. It gives off the impression that a friend is explaining it to you at times. Although I do think some parts of the article that were removed should have been there to provide greater detail. I do think in some areas the content added did improve the article. The strengths of the content added are, as I mentioned, easier to read compared to the original article. Overall, there wasn’t much content added to begin with, so to improve the article I would say adding more edits would enhance the text.