User:Arr8050/Coriolis effect (perception)/ButterflyGirl135 Peer Review
![]() | Peer review
Complete your peer review exercise below, providing as much constructive criticism as possible. The more detailed suggestions you provide, the more useful it will be to your classmate. Make sure you consider each of the following aspects: LeadGuiding questions:
ContentGuiding questions:
Tone and BalanceGuiding questions:
Sources and ReferencesGuiding questions:
OrganizationGuiding questions:
Images and MediaGuiding questions: If your peer added images or media
For New Articles OnlyIf the draft you're reviewing is for a new article, consider the following in addition to the above.
Overall impressionsGuiding questions:
Examples of good feedbackA good article evaluation can take a number of forms. The most essential things are to clearly identify the biggest shortcomings, and provide specific guidance on how the article can be improved.
Additional Resources |
General info
[edit]- Whose work are you reviewing?
Arr8050
- Link to draft you're reviewing
- https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/User:Arr8050/Coriolis_effect_%28perception%29?veaction=edit&preload=Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org_draft_template
- Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)
- Coriolis effect (perception)
Evaluate the drafted changes
[edit]Overall, I think you did a great job! There is not much for me to say when it comes to content. The start is effective and does a wonderful job explaining what the effect is. I also like that you mentioned the pseudo-Coriolis Effect. I do think a picture could be great for your topic if at all possible to find, since I imagine most visuals are related to the physics version. You may also want to break apart a couple of the sentences at the start, such as the second sentence that starts with, "this effect comes about as the head is moved in contrary..." The way you phrase it is easily understandable, but the sentence does feel a little too long while reading.
Article
- History
History section flows well and is easy to understand. I like that it is more concise and focused solely on the history instead of the current iteration of the Wikipedia page that is more jumbled up. You may consider adding a sentence about the modern interpretation, and maybe even reiterate the modern role in the domain of psychophysical perception.
- Causes and Effects
You made a good balance of clear and technical with your descriptions in this section, and the content from the various articles is paraphrased well with the Wikipedia guidelines in mind. This section is strong and flows well, I do not think anything needs real change.
- Real World Instances
Like the previous section, I think this section is well-crafted and does not need change. It is straight-forward and informative, and the mentioning of the pseudo-Coriolis effect is a good choice.
References/Further Reading
The references all seem solid and appropriate with the Wikipedia guidelines. You were able to find a lot of good sources as well, which adds to the quality of your article. Many of the sources seem to have similar information further boosting the content.