Wikipedia

User:Rfr5240/Virtual reality therapy/Arcpkl Peer Review

< User:Rfr5240

Peer review

edit

This is where you will complete your peer review exercise. Please use the following template to fill out your review.

General info

edit

Lead

edit

Guiding questions:

  • Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer?
  • Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?
  • Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
  • Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
  • Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?

Lead evaluation

edit
  • Edits have not necessitated an update to the Lead.
  • The Lead has an introductory sentence, but does not describe all of the major sections (seems to stop before Section 5).
  • It is concise but could be expanded more.

Content

edit

Guiding questions:

  • Is the content added relevant to the topic?
  • Is the content added up-to-date?
  • Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
  • Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics?

Content evaluation

edit
  • Edits have been focused around grammar changes, and have not changed the article's content.

Tone and Balance

edit

Guiding questions:

  • Is the content added neutral?
  • Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
  • Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
  • Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?

Tone and balance evaluation

edit
  • The article seems to be neutral and balanced.

Sources and References

edit

Guiding questions:

  • Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
  • Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
  • Are the sources current?
  • Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible?
  • Check a few links. Do they work?

Sources and references evaluation

edit
  • The Talk page for the article already contains comments about out-of-date sources.
  • Many sources are also tagged for re-evaluation.

Organization

edit

Guiding questions:

  • Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
  • Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors?
  • Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?

Organization evaluation

edit
  • Edits are on individual sentences from various places in the article.

Overall impressions

edit

Guiding questions:

  • Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete?
  • What are the strengths of the content added?
  • How can the content added be improved?

Overall evaluation

edit
  • Edits made so far have been to grammar for smoother reading.
  • One edit ("Unlike traditional cognitive...") may need to be changed back; the original comma helps separate a more in depth description from the rest of the sentence.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Rfr5240/Virtual_reality_therapy/Arcpkl_Peer_Review&oldid=984227546"