User:Alexandra.rylander/Metadiscourse/JessicaLiska Peer Review

General info
Alexandra.rylander
 * Whose work are you reviewing?


 * Link to draft you're reviewing
 * User:Alexandra.rylander/sandbox
 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)
 * Metadiscourse

Evaluate the drafted changes
(Compose a detailed peer review here, considering each of the key aspects listed above if it is relevant. Consider the guiding questions, and check out the examples of what feedback looks like.)

I think your addition in the lead section is very beneficial for the article, and gives a purpose for metadiscourse. I think maybe you could add a brief overview or just mention the following sections (hedges, boosters, additive markers) within the lead to provide more structure. I think that maybe the lead section (sentence 3) could be edited to be more concise...when reading it I had to read it a few times to understand.

The content you added is concise, clear, and relevant to the topic. I don't think the "...in science writing" sections are fully necessary for the article itself, I think these could be added as subpages within the article. Or maybe just include one "...in science writing" section and include all examples (hedging, boosting, attitude marking). I really like how you provide examples within the sections, and the table is a very easy to follow and helpful to the reader. Maybe you could use the table for examples within the larger sections (hedges, boosters, etc)? I would say maybe include an image, but I'm not really sure if that would be helpful in this context. You did a great job at remaining neutral within the article, and I don't see any bias at all. You have also added sources that seem reliable and are up to date. Overall, you did a great job at editing this page, and you will make great contributions!