Talk:Virtual reality in nursing

Content Guiding questions: Is the content added relevant to the topic?This looks to be a new wiki page. I checked out the Virtual Reality general page and noticed through my search that there wasn't one specific done for VR in Nursing context. It looks like your additions are an important update to the VR page.

Is the content added up-to-date? -Yes it focuses on current impacts/issues and includes quite a few recent research articles (2000s-2020 range).

Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? -I'm curious about the brief lead giving an overview of Virtual Reality before diving into the topic. I may suggest taking that first part out and jumping right into the VR within Nursing. You could keep the link to the wiki VR page in your opening line in the VR Nursing section to direct readers to learn more about general VR content, instead.

Tone and Balance Guiding questions: Is the content added neutral? -Yes, generally, information is presented in a neutral tone. There are a few instances which have biased tones such as "Virtual reality can be the answer"...seeming as though you are arguing here rather than presenting neural POV. Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? -Nothing major, see example cited above.

Sources and References Guiding questions: Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? -In text citations/references are used throughout to back up the content presented. Does the content accurately reflect what the cited sources say? -After checking in on the sources (as someone with little to no knowledge of this topic - yes, I found the content to reflect the information presented in the sources). Are the sources current? Yes, quite a bit of current research (2000-2020 range) is presented. Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? The references included have a diverse spectrum of authors. Some sections focus very heavily on only one author. For example, first section heavily presents reference #2, etc.

Organization Guiding questions: Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? -Yes, concise and to the point (I didn't find it to be too wordy) and I found the language used to be accessible even though I don't know much about the topic. Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors? Inconsistent capitalization of Virtual Reality - sometimes the "r" is capitalized and other times not. A few comma errors throughout, too. Also noticed that some sentences do not have periods at the end of them. Some text I was unable to decipher: "The following are a list example where virtual reality can be incorporated to elevate nursing education" Is the content added well-organized -Yes content is broken down into nicely organized paragraphs. I wonder if it may be more beneficial to have sentences presented in paragraphs within sections rather than all separate, spaced out sentences.

Overall impressions Guiding questions: Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete?- Yes, since this is a new article, I found the addition of VR focus on Nursing specifically to be practical and useful. What are the strengths of the content added? -I like the addition of the direct links to YouTube - I'm not 100% sure if we are able to do it this way (I did the same thing in my article). ''How can the content added be improved? -''Perhaps a few more links to direct wiki articles (i.e. when discussing the covid-19 pandemic, you could provide the direct link to the Covid-19 wiki article). I like the addition of the different training programs offered although I'm wondering if the way this is presented is almost too much of a "selling" or "persuasion" piece?

Thanks for the information! Haylee W (talk) 20:14, 20 November 2021 (UTC)