User talk:Miaprado/Gustatory nucleus/Evoll98 Peer Review

I think the beginning part of the section was good, as it provided insight into what the Gustatory Nucleus is immediately. When mentioning that these nuclei relate to three cranial nerves, explain which ones they are, because there are more than three cranial nerves. I felt that mentioning GABA as the primary inhibitory neurotransmitter felt a bit out of place without elaborating on the importance of GABA as the neurotransmitter - neurotransmitter for what?

General info Whose work are you reviewing? (provide username) Miaprado Link to draft you're reviewing: Gustatory nucleus 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? Yes Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections? I think it could use a bit more explanation in what the overall webpage should be about. 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. Lead evaluation

- I think it could use a few more sentences to discuss what the overall page will be about.

Content

Guiding questions:

Is the content added relevant to the topic? Yes but could include some more relevant details. Is the content added up-to-date? Yes Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? Some seem a bit out of place in regards to where it is in the flow of the paper. Content evaluation

- Could use some more relevant information

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? No Tone and balance evaluation

- Good neutral tone

Sources and References

Guiding questions:

Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? Yes Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? Yes Are the sources current? Yes Check a few links. Do they work? Yes Sources and references evaluation

- Good use of sources

Organization

Guiding questions:

Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors? Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? Organization evaluation Images and Media

Guiding questions: If your peer added images or media

Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic? No Are images well-captioned? N/A Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations? N/A Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way? N/A Images and media evaluation

- N/A

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? Good use of references 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 New Article Evaluation

- Good use of article referencing

Overall impressions

Guiding questions:

Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete? Yes, but could use more relevant information in certain places. What are the strengths of the content added? Thought the links to other articles were good. How can the content added be improved? I think there could be more of a sense of flow and cohesion throughout. Overall evaluation

- I think it has the potential to be very good with a few more details added in!

Evoll98 (talk) 22:07, 15 October 2019 (UTC) Emma Vollmer