Jump to content

User:Morrisse95/Forensic psychology/FormallyTrainedHomunculus Peer Review: Difference between revisions

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
peer review created
 
→‎Evaluate the drafted changes: I replied to the peer reviews suggestions
 
Line 11: Line 11:


: I think that this case is definitely interesting and relevant, but I do agree with the suggested edit that there should be a bit more explanation as to the relevance of this case to the article overall. This edit reads as a good introduction to the concept of the Standard of Admissability, but it doesn't quite explain to a person unfamiliar to the topic how this concept is relevant to the topic itself. One thing I might suggest is to educate on the concepts themselves and how they relate to the topic, as it does read as a bit jargon-heavy for a passage this size. With a bit of attention to some flow, content explanation, and organization, this section could be a great part of background history about the topic!
: I think that this case is definitely interesting and relevant, but I do agree with the suggested edit that there should be a bit more explanation as to the relevance of this case to the article overall. This edit reads as a good introduction to the concept of the Standard of Admissability, but it doesn't quite explain to a person unfamiliar to the topic how this concept is relevant to the topic itself. One thing I might suggest is to educate on the concepts themselves and how they relate to the topic, as it does read as a bit jargon-heavy for a passage this size. With a bit of attention to some flow, content explanation, and organization, this section could be a great part of background history about the topic!
Response: 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. I hope that it is less jargon and more understandable to a person without background knowledge. If there is more that I am missing please let me know!

Thank you for your suggestions it has helped my article.

Latest revision as of 04:52, 25 February 2024

General info

[edit]
Whose work are you reviewing?

Morrise95

Link to draft you're reviewing
Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)

Evaluate the drafted changes

[edit]
I think that this case is definitely interesting and relevant, but I do agree with the suggested edit that there should be a bit more explanation as to the relevance of this case to the article overall. This edit reads as a good introduction to the concept of the Standard of Admissability, but it doesn't quite explain to a person unfamiliar to the topic how this concept is relevant to the topic itself. One thing I might suggest is to educate on the concepts themselves and how they relate to the topic, as it does read as a bit jargon-heavy for a passage this size. With a bit of attention to some flow, content explanation, and organization, this section could be a great part of background history about the topic!

Response: 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. I hope that it is less jargon and more understandable to a person without background knowledge. If there is more that I am missing please let me know!

Thank you for your suggestions it has helped my article.

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Morrisse95/Forensic_psychology/FormallyTrainedHomunculus_Peer_Review&oldid=1210140402"