User:ScholarJay/Motor unit recruitment/Kf7tgy22 Peer Review

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing?

ScholarJay


 * Link to draft you're reviewing
 * User:ScholarJay/Motor unit recruitment
 * User:ScholarJay/Motor unit recruitment/Bibliography


 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)
 * Motor unit recruitment

Evaluate the drafted changes
I didn't see your edit of the Lead here, but I think that the lead already discusses mostly what you've added. Maybe just look at it to make sure.

I really like your sources that you used. I can't remember how many they wanted but I think it might have been 4. But I like how you used the original source for the work in one reference (Burke) and then you stuck to reviews rather than primary after that. I also think you did a good job at talking about the controversy without putting any opinions in and only stating what the literature shows. For the second paragraph, I'm wondering if there's more recent data to clarify any of those ideas.

The only other thing that I'm noticing is that I remember Dr. Woodbury saying that we should try to keep all the headings roughly the same length within an article. I wonder if some of those can be reorganized or if that mechanism heading could be split into two since it's already the biggest and we would be adding another paragraph.

Overall thought I think this is great. It's clearly at least a paragraph worth of data and it's very applicable to the article topic.