User:Pothosjoy3/Cancer-related fatigue/22ilovecats22 Peer Review

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:

Lead

Guiding questions:

Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer?
Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?
Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?

Content

Guiding questions:

Is the content added relevant to the topic?
Is the content added up-to-date?
Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics?

Tone and Balance

Guiding questions:

Is the content added neutral?
Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?

Sources and References

Guiding questions:

Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
Does the content accurately reflect what the cited sources say? (You'll need to refer to the sources to check this.)
Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
Are the sources current?
Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible?
Are there better sources available, such as peer-reviewed articles in place of news coverage or random websites? (You may need to do some digging to answer this.)
Check a few links. Do they work?

Organization

Guiding questions:

Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors?
Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?

Images and Media

Guiding questions: If your peer added images or media

Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic?
Are images well-captioned?
Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations?
Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way?

For New Articles Only

If the draft you're reviewing is for a new article, consider the following in addition to the above.

Does the article meet Wikipedia's Notability requirements - i.e. Is the article supported by 2-3 reliable secondary sources independent of the subject?
How exhaustive is the list of sources? Does it accurately represent all available literature on the subject?
Does the article follow the patterns of other similar articles - i.e. contain any necessary infoboxes, section headings, and any other features contained within similar articles?
Does the article link to other articles so it is more discoverable?

Overall impressions

Guiding questions:

Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete?
What are the strengths of the content added?
How can the content added be improved?

Examples of good feedback

A 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.

Peer review of "Homemaking"
Peer review of this article about a famous painting

Additional Resources

Check out the Editing Wikipedia PDF for general editing tips and suggestions.

General info

Whose work are you reviewing?

Pothosjoy3

Link to draft you're reviewing
User:Pothosjoy3/Cancer-related fatigue
Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)
Cancer-related fatigue

Evaluate the drafted changes

Content -

The content is definitely relevant to the original article. There was a lot of extremely vague information in the article such as "nearly ALL patients experience fatigue", and "dying people sleep more than health people", with absolutely no citations. The student added citations to many claims that clearly needed a source to back it up. The content added in regards to management is very beneficial and fits in well with the existing content. The student specified which types of physical activity are most beneficial in managing fatigue, and also provided specific drugs/medicines that may improve symptoms of fatigue, as well as those that have not been seen to work. I think adding to the management section was very helpful because many people likely go to this page seeking information on how to improve their symptoms and information like this could truly improve their quality of life.

Tone -

The content added is neutral, and does not appear to overly push any type of approach to treating cancer related fatigue. It also is very honest with using words like "may" instead of making strong claims that a certain approach will definitely provide positive results.

Sources -

All of the information is backed up by reliable sources and accurately reflects the data from them. The student is currently using 9 different sources, which I think is a great number to be working with and they appear to cover the available literature on the topic. As for how current they are, the sources typically range from 2010-2014, so I would be interested to see if the student could find any novel data from 2020 and later. The articles are high quality and peer reviewed. The first link took me to a PDF that I had to have access to see, and the second link was a deadline for me, but other than that, the rest of the links worked.

Organization -

The content is worded well, easy to digest, and has no spelling errors. There were certain sections where the student noted that they plan to add on to that area at a later time, so I would love to revisit the article again when there is even more information to read!

Overall impression -

I think your contributions so far are really going to bump up the status of the article. Like I previously stated, there are a lot of claims that needed sources behind them, and I love that you were able to find the needed information. I also liked that you used many sources to back up your own information that you added, which gives another level of reliability and professionalism. I also really enjoyed what you've added to the management section to give a bit of hope to a somewhat bleak article. I would like to see you potentially add more information to the screening section, like what screening looks like for patients after treatment and not just on the first visit, if patients are satisfied with the level of screening they receive, and also look for some information on what a symptom journal is that you can add! Overall, great job and I am eager to see more of your work.