 | 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 |
- Whose work are you reviewing?
Asp.woods
- Link to draft you're reviewing
- Means of communication
- Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)
- Means of communication
This draft on means of communication has some useful information, but there are several areas where improvement is needed.
Firstly, the lead section could be improved by providing a clearer overview of the main points that the article will cover, rather than just a general statement about communication. This will help readers to better understand the purpose of the article and what they can expect to learn from it.
In the body of the article, there are some good points made about the importance of non-verbal communication and how it can be used effectively, but there are also some sections that lack clarity and coherence. For example, the section on extrasensory perception (ESP) feels disconnected from the rest of the article and it is not entirely clear how it relates to communication. Furthermore, some of the paragraphs jump from one topic to another without proper transitions, which can be confusing for the reader.
Additionally, there are some points made that are not entirely accurate or are oversimplified. For example, the statement that spelling is essential for portraying ourselves as professional or well-educated is not entirely accurate, as many people who are highly educated may still struggle with spelling. Also, the section on social media and influencing oversimplifies the complex dynamics of social media communication and how it can be used to influence people.
Finally, the article would benefit from additional sources and references to support the points made. While some sources are cited, there are many sections that would benefit from additional research and data to provide more depth and credibility to the article. Lastly I would like to add that wikipedia as an academic encyclopedia it is important to stay neutral when writing. Try staying away from phrases such as "I" and "We." Just state points try staying away from personal opinions. It is just a draft though, I liked how you got your points across. Just something to edit when making final publishing changes.
As a whole this article has the fundamentals to have useful edits to the wikipedia page. But it would benefit from significant revisions to improve clarity, coherence, and accuracy, as well as additional research and sources to support the claims made. I think the suggestions I mentioned will help complete the article. Good work.
| 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 |
- Whose work are you reviewing?
Asp.woods
- Link to draft you're reviewing
- Means of communication
- Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)
- Means of communication
This draft on means of communication has some useful information, but there are several areas where improvement is needed.
Firstly, the lead section could be improved by providing a clearer overview of the main points that the article will cover, rather than just a general statement about communication. This will help readers to better understand the purpose of the article and what they can expect to learn from it.
In the body of the article, there are some good points made about the importance of non-verbal communication and how it can be used effectively, but there are also some sections that lack clarity and coherence. For example, the section on extrasensory perception (ESP) feels disconnected from the rest of the article and it is not entirely clear how it relates to communication. Furthermore, some of the paragraphs jump from one topic to another without proper transitions, which can be confusing for the reader.
Additionally, there are some points made that are not entirely accurate or are oversimplified. For example, the statement that spelling is essential for portraying ourselves as professional or well-educated is not entirely accurate, as many people who are highly educated may still struggle with spelling. Also, the section on social media and influencing oversimplifies the complex dynamics of social media communication and how it can be used to influence people.
Finally, the article would benefit from additional sources and references to support the points made. While some sources are cited, there are many sections that would benefit from additional research and data to provide more depth and credibility to the article. Lastly I would like to add that wikipedia as an academic encyclopedia it is important to stay neutral when writing. Try staying away from phrases such as "I" and "We." Just state points try staying away from personal opinions. It is just a draft though, I liked how you got your points across. Just something to edit when making final publishing changes.
As a whole this article has the fundamentals to have useful edits to the wikipedia page. But it would benefit from significant revisions to improve clarity, coherence, and accuracy, as well as additional research and sources to support the claims made. I think the suggestions I mentioned will help complete the article. Good work.