User:ThunderhillMc/Déjà vu/Mick11738 Peer Review

General info
The deja vu article 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
(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.)

This draft goes much in depth in the implicit memory section. I notice there are plenty of references and images to help guide the reader and support the speaker's evidence. There are definitely some spots where a reference could be used. They are just long strings of information with no breaks with a source. Another example of this is the "History" section, which is missing any sort of references. The draft uses very neutral, science-based language and it's easy to read and follow. I personally really like when articles include explanations of experiments in them. All in all, this draft is looking very strong and just a few reference additions would really tie it together.