This is where you will complete your peer review exercise. Please use the following template to fill out your review.
Guiding questions:
The lead includes an introductory sentence which is easy for me to understand the concept of the topic, though it would be better to be more concise. Beside, most of sections are covered in lead, but there are concepts like 'Polysynthetic Language' that did not present in the article.
Guiding questions:
I did not find the added content. However, I think many references are outdated. It is better to update with new information.
Guiding questions:
The tone is quite neutral. I did not find assertive statements or the use of 'I' and 'you'.
Guiding questions:
The contribution list contains a wide range of authors. Many links seem working. Sources are a little bit outdated.
Guiding questions:
Firstly, I think the content is easy to read because there are many examples given after the theories were mentioned. However, the article should be reorganized. For example, I think the section 'Lexical morphology' should appear in advance. It maybe could be merged into the section 'Types of word formation'.
Guiding questions: If your peer added images or media
I did not find my peer add images.
If the draft you're reviewing is a new article, consider the following in addition to the above.
Guiding questions:
This is where you will complete your peer review exercise. Please use the following template to fill out your review.
Guiding questions:
The lead includes an introductory sentence which is easy for me to understand the concept of the topic, though it would be better to be more concise. Beside, most of sections are covered in lead, but there are concepts like 'Polysynthetic Language' that did not present in the article.
Guiding questions:
I did not find the added content. However, I think many references are outdated. It is better to update with new information.
Guiding questions:
The tone is quite neutral. I did not find assertive statements or the use of 'I' and 'you'.
Guiding questions:
The contribution list contains a wide range of authors. Many links seem working. Sources are a little bit outdated.
Guiding questions:
Firstly, I think the content is easy to read because there are many examples given after the theories were mentioned. However, the article should be reorganized. For example, I think the section 'Lexical morphology' should appear in advance. It maybe could be merged into the section 'Types of word formation'.
Guiding questions: If your peer added images or media
I did not find my peer add images.
If the draft you're reviewing is a new article, consider the following in addition to the above.
Guiding questions: