User:Pedro.torres26/Neurobiological effects of physical exercise/Ivanaliztorresm 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) Pedro.torres26
 * Link to draft you're reviewing: User:Pedro.torres26/Neurobiological effects of physical exercise

Lead
Guiding questions


 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic? No, it does not contain a concise and clearly introductory sentences that describes the article's topic.
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections? It does not include a brief description of the article's major section, is just a big paragraph.
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? It does include information that is not present in the article.
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? The lead is a bit overly detailed and does not start talking about what is article about.

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic? There is no content.

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral? The content is neutral and widespread written.
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? No, everything written is very generalized.
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? In the case of this article, there are viewpoints underrepresent about the topic itself.
 * Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another? The content added does not persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another.

Sources and References
Guiding questions:


 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? In this article there is no reliable secondary sources and does not include any links.

Organization
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? The content added is well-written, but it is not concise to read.
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? The content is not that well-organized and is not broken down into sections.

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


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic? The article does not include images.

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? The article does not count with secondary sources.
 * Does the article link to other articles so it is more discoverable? The article does not count with other links so it can be more discoverable.

Overall impressions
Guiding questions:


 * Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete? The article can be more complete, if its concentrate in the article's topic.
 * How can the content added be improved? The content can be more improve by editing the organization and dividing it into sections for more specific content.