User:Porter2226/Archicortex/Annakaji Peer Review

Peer review

General info

• Whose work are you reviewing? Porter2226
• Link to draft you're reviewing: Archicortex

Lead

Guiding questions:

• Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer? No.
• 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? No, my peer should add a sentence on structure & one on memory.
• Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? Yes
• Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? It is overly detailed

Lead evaluation

The Lead hasn't been updated to reflect the new content; a sentence on structure & a sentence on memory should be added. The Lead also includes information that is not present in the article, making it overly detailed.

Content

Guiding questions:

• Is the content added relevant to the topic? Yes
• Is the content added up-to-date? Yes
• Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? No

Content evaluation

Good content.

Tone and Balance

Guiding questions:

• Is the content added neutral? Kind of
• Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? Yes: "Unlike the neocortex, current theories of the archicortex argue that it performs simple memorization without changing the input's format in any complex manner." This statement only presents one argument of current theories. Is this the only current theory?
• Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? See above.
• Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another? Yes

Tone and balance evaluation

"Unlike the neocortex, current theories of the archicortex argue that it performs simple memorization without changing the input's format in any complex manner." This statement only presents one argument of current theories. Is this the only current theory?

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? No, there is a 1971 source.
• Check a few links. Do they work? Yes

Sources and references evaluation

These are all good sources, but some aren't current (1971).

Organization

Guiding questions:

• Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? No: "Archicortex is unable to classify inputs." Consider adding a "the" in front of "archicortex" here.
• 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

Organization evaluation

Check the writing: "Archicortex is unable to classify inputs." Consider adding a "the" in front of "archicortex" here. The content is well-organized though.

Images and Media

Guiding questions: If your peer added images or media

• Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic?
• Are images well-captioned?
• Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations?
• Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way?

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?
• 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

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? Well cited & on topic.
• How can the content added be improved? Replace 1971 source.

Overall evaluation

The article overall looks good. The Lead hasn't been updated to reflect the new content; a sentence on structure & a sentence on memory should be added. The Lead also includes information that is not present in the article, making it overly detailed. Good content, though. Watch your tone: "Unlike the neocortex, current theories of the archicortex argue that it performs simple memorization without changing the input's format in any complex manner." This statement only presents one argument of current theories. Is this the only current theory? All the sources are good, but some aren't current (1971). Check the writing: "Archicortex is unable to classify inputs." Consider adding a "the" in front of "archicortex" here. The content is well-organized though. The article is definitely more complete & well cited.