 | 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?
Username: Psychittome.
- Link to draft you're reviewing
- Cognitive disorder
- Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)
- Cognitive disorder
Lead:
The overall lead has been updated to reflect the new content and does include a concise introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic. The Introductory sentence is concise and clearly described the article's topic. This section also contains a list of the various medical conditions as a summary in the beginning. It is a little more detailed, but contains good information needed for this article.
Content:
The contents have been concisely reorganized on this page. The table of contents look significants different and easier to follow. Content added is up-to-date. It was previously organized as follows: Cognitive mental disorder perspective,Classifications, Causes, Treatment - However now it is organized as Classifications, Diagnostic Methods, Causes and treatment which makes it easier to follow. the content added is concise and to the point.
Tone and Balance:
The content is neutral and factual. There are no biased claims towards a particular position and the content is not attempting to persuade the reader in favor of one position. It is simply listing facts.
Sources and References:
All the new content added has been backed up by a reliable secondary source of information. The content is accurate cited and the sources are current, quite a few ranging from 2014-2019. the sources are written by a diverse spectrum of authors and taken from multiple different locations such as journals and open source articles. the few links listed do work and redirect you back to the original source.
Organization:
The content added is well written and concise. There were no grammatical errors noted. The organization was changed from before, as listen in the Content section of this review, however now it easier to follow than it was previously. It is now broken down into sections that reflect the major points more effectively.
Images and Media:
There are no image added to the topic. There is however an Info box in the beginning of the page which concisely lists out some information. Other than that, there are no images. The page overall is visually appealing and informative.
Overall Impressions:
The content that have been added and reorganized has improved the overall quality of the article and has also increased the overall length of the article than before. What I really like is how the Mild and major cognitive disorder were further classified into their own subsections to give a better understanding of each and the classifications sections was further expanded. The reorganization is the biggest strength of the article in my opinion as it makes it much easier to follow, more complete and just improves the overall layout. These changes have significantly improved the quality of the article.
| 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?
Username: Psychittome.
- Link to draft you're reviewing
- Cognitive disorder
- Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)
- Cognitive disorder
Lead:
The overall lead has been updated to reflect the new content and does include a concise introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic. The Introductory sentence is concise and clearly described the article's topic. This section also contains a list of the various medical conditions as a summary in the beginning. It is a little more detailed, but contains good information needed for this article.
Content:
The contents have been concisely reorganized on this page. The table of contents look significants different and easier to follow. Content added is up-to-date. It was previously organized as follows: Cognitive mental disorder perspective,Classifications, Causes, Treatment - However now it is organized as Classifications, Diagnostic Methods, Causes and treatment which makes it easier to follow. the content added is concise and to the point.
Tone and Balance:
The content is neutral and factual. There are no biased claims towards a particular position and the content is not attempting to persuade the reader in favor of one position. It is simply listing facts.
Sources and References:
All the new content added has been backed up by a reliable secondary source of information. The content is accurate cited and the sources are current, quite a few ranging from 2014-2019. the sources are written by a diverse spectrum of authors and taken from multiple different locations such as journals and open source articles. the few links listed do work and redirect you back to the original source.
Organization:
The content added is well written and concise. There were no grammatical errors noted. The organization was changed from before, as listen in the Content section of this review, however now it easier to follow than it was previously. It is now broken down into sections that reflect the major points more effectively.
Images and Media:
There are no image added to the topic. There is however an Info box in the beginning of the page which concisely lists out some information. Other than that, there are no images. The page overall is visually appealing and informative.
Overall Impressions:
The content that have been added and reorganized has improved the overall quality of the article and has also increased the overall length of the article than before. What I really like is how the Mild and major cognitive disorder were further classified into their own subsections to give a better understanding of each and the classifications sections was further expanded. The reorganization is the biggest strength of the article in my opinion as it makes it much easier to follow, more complete and just improves the overall layout. These changes have significantly improved the quality of the article.