User:Zachprince6/sandbox

Peer review
This is where you will complete your peer review exercise. Please use the following template to fill out your review.

General info

 * Annie Barry
 * COGnitive Gaming

Lead
Guiding questions:


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer? Yes
 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic? I think the introductory sentence could be a little more clear for users who aren't gamers.
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections? The lead doesn't really have a main section it looks like it's just the start.
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? All the information is present in the article.
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? The lead is concise.

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic? The content is relevant. It just needs to be more descriptive.
 * Is the content added up-to-date? Yes the content is up-to-date. Cease of operations being in 2016.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? Everything belongs there it seems as though there could be more content added on the subject.

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral? Yes
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? No
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? No
 * Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another? Not at all.

Sources and References
Guiding questions:


 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? The contact is backed up by a reliable source of information.
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? Yes they are.
 * Are the sources current? The sources are current.
 * Check a few links. Do they work? The second link did not work. The rest worked.

Organization
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? Yes it's well written.
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors? No all spelling and grammar appears to be correct.
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? Yes.

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


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic? No, this article needs more images.
 * Are images well-captioned? No.
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations? Only 1 image and yes.
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way? No.

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? Yes
 * How exhaustive is the list of sources? Does it accurately represent all available literature on the subject? No there could be more sources added.
 * Does the article follow the patterns of other similar articles - i.e. contain any necessary infoboxes, section headings, and any other features contained within similar articles? Yes
 * Does the article link to other articles so it is more discoverable? Yes it links to a few other articles.

Overall impressions
Guiding questions:


 * Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete? Needs to have more information on the subject added to the article. It's a great start.
 * What are the strengths of the content added? The content added is accurate and informative however there is very little presented on the subject.
 * How can the content added be improved? Add more information and paragraphs.

Overall evaluation
Needs improvement.

Peer review
This is where you will complete your peer review exercise. Please use the following template to fill out your review.

General info

 * I am reviewing the article belong too Annie Barry
 * Link to the article: Cognitive neuroscience

Lead
Guiding questions:


 * The lead has been updated.
 * The lead of this article is clear and concise.
 * The lead is easy to follow.
 * No information is included in the article that is not present and outlined.
 * The lead is concise and does not include too much information or over detailed.

Content
Guiding questions:


 * The content is relevant.
 * The content is up-to-date.
 * There is no missing content everything is up-to-date.

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * The content added is neutral.
 * No claims appear to be biased.
 * The viewpoints are neither overrepresented or underrepresented.
 * The content does not persuade readers to believe a certain way. Everything is neutral.

Sources and References
Guiding questions:


 * Yes the source is reliable.
 * The sources are thorough and reflect the literature on the topic.
 * Sources are current.
 * The links all work correctly.

Organization
Guiding questions:


 * The content is very well written.
 * The content does not appear to have spelling or grammatical errors.
 * Everything appears to be well organized and done very professionally.

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


 * There have been no images added to this page. Images can be added for improvement.

For New Articles Only
If the draft you're reviewing is a new article, consider the following in addition to the above.


 * There are at least 2-3 reliable sources on the topic.
 * The sources accurately represent all listed information on the topic.
 * Yes the pattern of this article is very similar to other articles. It appears to be professional and organized.
 * There are a few links to other articles.

Overall impressions
Guiding questions:


 * The article is almost complete and looks very promising.
 * The strengths of this article are that it is well organized and follows a great pattern. It has good flow.
 * Pictures can be added to improve article overall.

Overall evaluation
Great article so far would love to see some pictures included to really catch the interest of readers.

Peer review[edit]
This is where you will complete your peer review exercise. Please use the following template to fill out your review.

General info[edit]

 * Whose work are you reviewing? Annie Barry
 * Link to draft you're reviewing: Cognitive psychology

Lead[edit]
Guiding questions:


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer? Yes.
 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic? Yes it includes a great introduction to the sentence. It's clear and easy to follow.
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections? Yes there is a description it's brief but informative.
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? No
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? It's concise and has great details however it's not overly detailed.

Content[edit]
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic? Yes it's relevant.
 * Is the content added up-to-date? The content added is up to date.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? There isn't any content missing or things that do not belong.

Tone and Balance[edit]
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral? Yes the content is neutral there are no biases.
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? There are no claims that are biased everything is neutral.
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? No everything is right on point.
 * Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another? No.

Sources and References[edit]
Guiding questions:


 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? Yes the content is all backed up.
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? They reflect most of the literature on the topic however I feel there is more to choose from.
 * Are the sources current? Yes they are current.
 * Check a few links. Do they work? Yes I clicked on a few and they all worked.

Organization[edit]
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? Yes it's well written and concise.
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors? No.
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? Yes the content is broken down into sections.

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


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic? Could use more images.
 * Are images well-captioned? Yes the images are there.
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations? Yes.
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way? Yes they are appealing.

For New Articles Only[edit]
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?
 * How exhaustive is the list of sources? Does it accurately represent all available literature on the subject?
 * Does the article follow the patterns of other similar articles - i.e. contain any necessary infoboxes, section headings, and any other features contained within similar articles?
 * Does the article link to other articles so it is more discoverable?

Overall impressions[edit]
Guiding questions:


 * Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete? Yes.
 * What are the strengths of the content added? This is a great article with a lot of useful information.
 * How can the content added be improved? There could be more pictures involved to help people visualize.

Overall evaluation[edit]
Great article with only minor details needed.