User:ThunderhillMc/Déjà vu/Birdie2324 Peer Review

General info
ThunderhillMc group
 * Whose work are you reviewing?


 * Link to draft you're reviewing:User:ThunderhillMc/Déjà vu
 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists):Déjà vu

Evaluate the drafted changes
I think that the drafted changes have definitely improved the article. I love the addition of the pictures. However, I would suggest going back and looking at the captions. One picture doesn't have one at all, and the other three could use some help highlighting their function in complementing the article. I would also look at breaking the implicit memory section into chunks with headings to make it a bit easier to read. I love the addition of the 2018 study because it helps cement the evidence this group is trying to use. Since science is ever-evolving, new studies help when laying out the latest facts.

When looking at the History section of the sandbox article, there is a distinct lack of embedded references (the little hyperlink numbers), when editing I would go back and either reference what you added, or if you didn't add anything to this section, try and find support for the points being made. When looking at the reference section itself, there are two sources not formatted the same as the rest. Easy fix! Overall I think this group has done a good job keeping a neutral tone and adding things to the article that are not fluff.