User:Morrisse95/Forensic psychology/FormallyTrainedHomunculus Peer Review: Difference between revisions
peer review created |
Morrisse95 (talk | contribs) →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
![]() | 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 |
General info
[edit]- Whose work are you reviewing?
Morrise95
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.