User:Lshersh/Prosthesis/Kimjammer 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 ResourcesCheck out the Editing Wikipedia PDF for general editing tips and suggestions. |
General info[edit]
- Whose work are you reviewing?
Lshersh
- Link to draft you're reviewing
- User:Lshersh/Prosthesis
- Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)
- Prosthesis
Evaluate the drafted changes[edit]
- Is the content added relevant to the topic?
I think this is an awesome addition to this article, incorporating a new section that isn't currently well covered by the existing article. It also works in a lot of the ideas we have been exploring in class, which is great.
- Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
It's great that all of the claims are backed up by a published paper focusing directly on the stated topic. However, I would suggest paraphrasing the information in your own words instead of quoting the sources here, as I don't think they necessitate a direct quote. Stating your claim/facts directly and just putting the citation on the end instead of using the "according to X..." structure would also make it feel more like a Wikipedia article than a student paper.
- Check a few links. Do they work?
The citation links all work! It looks like your second citation might need its date fixed though.
- Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
All of the text written by you is clear and easy to read!
- 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, there is a clear division between the two sections discussing the ethical and social aspects of prosthetics. Just curious, where are you planning to insert this section in the main article?