User:Morrisse95/Forensic psychology/Sdavis81 Peer Review: Difference between revisions
←Created page with '{{dashboard.wikiedu.org peer review/guide}} ==General info== ;Whose work are you reviewing? ;Morrisse95 ;Link to draft you're reviewing. ;https://w.wiki/9CjY ;Link to the current version of the article (if it exists) ;https://w.wiki/9Cja == Evaluate the drafted changes == The information added is relevant to the article topic and neutral. I think it would be helpful to provide additional information regarding the case because the explanation was somewhat...' |
Morrisse95 (talk | contribs) →Evaluate the drafted changes: I replied to the peer reviews suggestions |
||
Line 11: | Line 11: | ||
The information added is relevant to the article topic and neutral. I think it would be helpful to provide additional information regarding the case because the explanation was somewhat vague. The references used are not secondary/peer reviewed sources. Maybe the case could be tied in with psychological factors or research that would provide reliable references? I think more information could be added about research in forensic psychology. Good job overall. |
The information added is relevant to the article topic and neutral. I think it would be helpful to provide additional information regarding the case because the explanation was somewhat vague. The references used are not secondary/peer reviewed sources. Maybe the case could be tied in with psychological factors or research that would provide reliable references? I think more information could be added about research in forensic psychology. Good job overall. |
||
Reply to review: |
|||
I made changes to the article by adding more information regarding the case that brought forth the Daubert standard being used by the U.S. Supreme court.Thank you for your suggestions it has helped my article. |
Latest revision as of 04:47, 25 February 2024
![]() | 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?
- Morrisse95
- Link to draft you're reviewing.
- https://w.wiki/9CjY
- Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)
- https://w.wiki/9Cja
Evaluate the drafted changes[edit]
The information added is relevant to the article topic and neutral. I think it would be helpful to provide additional information regarding the case because the explanation was somewhat vague. The references used are not secondary/peer reviewed sources. Maybe the case could be tied in with psychological factors or research that would provide reliable references? I think more information could be added about research in forensic psychology. Good job overall.
Reply to review:
I made changes to the article by adding more information regarding the case that brought forth the Daubert standard being used by the U.S. Supreme court.Thank you for your suggestions it has helped my article.