User:Lilsunchip/Monoarthritis/MyDogsBestie Peer Review
Appearance
![]() | 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?
Lilsunchip
- Link to draft you're reviewing
- User:Lilsunchip/Monoarthritis
- Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)
- Monoarthritis
Evaluate the drafted changes
[edit]- Lead Section
- The lead section of your article so far does describe the content of your article because it gives a couple causes and then goes into the actual causes section.
- The lead section is more of a lead sentence, it doesn't go into too much detail so it is concise and to the point. I do think it can be expanded upon (i.e. adding some statistics, going into the diagnostic tools, etc.)
- Content
- The content that was added is relevant to the topic and up to date.
- The treatment section is missing but that's understandable for a draft.
- Tone and Balance
- The tone is neutral, and there's no taking sides anywhere in the article.
- Sources and References
- For your second and fourth sources, you need to add a date its super easy to do just find it in your article and then hover over one of your [2] and [4] and hit the "Edit" button then find the date and put it in YYYY-MM-DD.
- Your 4th source, when clicking the link brings up a Page Does not Exist error, but i was able to find it with some digging around.
- Sources aren't super current (the one is from 1998, but I get using older articles) but two out of four are pretty current.
- But other than that, the sources are current, thorough, and the content accurately reflects the articles given.
- Organization
- The organization of the article is good, the lead section details the causes and it pretty much follows that quite well.
- Images and Media
- There aren't any but that's okay mine doesn't have any either.
- Overall Impressions
- The article is pretty good in my opinion, it's definitely improved.
- I do think that you can add a section in on say the statistics and expand on the treatments section, that'd be super cool to see.
- I noticed you rewrote most of the causes and i think that's a big improvement because the ones before had no sources, no reputable claims, just what seems to be unsourced opinion.