Tawfik_De Jerez_P3PR

Major Points

The article the author is working to contribute to is in a very early stage of development. The author is planning to add sections that go into greater depth regarding the structure itself as well as a section on the clinical significance of the structure. I believe these are excellent and needed additions. I would suggest separating the "function" header from the clinical significance section and letting it stand alone. That way the author could go into depth about how the structure itself works without being constrained within the context of its clinical significance. Under clinical significance, I would suggest discussing disorders related to errors in the function of the structure.

In the introduction, I would suggest explaining in the first sentence that this is a structure of the brain that is involved in the process of movement and balance. This would make the page more accessible, which seems to a concern that has been noted on the page of the topic for which the author is writing.

The author should include references for the information given. Currently there are none.

Minor Points

The author attempts to explain several terms used in their article. This is a good attempt at making the piece more accessible. I would suggest relying more on the linked articles- it will make the piece cleaner and is less intrusive.

Wikipedia is used by a wide variety of audiences, but an article like this one about a very specific structure of the brain will likely have an audience that is more familiar with neuroscience than most. For this reason, providing a definition for the term "cerebral" is likely unnecessary.

Summary

Author is well-organized and off to a good start. References are needed. Some restructuring could improve the article, which, according to its page, is currently unsatisfactory.