User:Allibsusss/Patient advocacy/Jerichorajninger Peer Review

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing?

Allibsusss


 * Link to draft you're reviewing
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Allibsusss/Patient_advocacy?veaction=edit&preload=Template%3ADashboard.wikiedu.org_draft_template


 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)
 * Patient advocacy

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic? The content seems relevant to the topic. The added content is effective in that it revises the history section that is there (which is rather weak). The additions remove unnecessary quotations and provide a fuller picture of the history and purpose of patient advocacy.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral? Seems neutral! The content does a good job of laying out the context and different patient situations without taking a position or a stance.

Sources and References
Guiding questions:


 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? As you noted, there aren't too many sources included in the Roles section that you've added — that would probably be a place to expand citation, as most factual claims should be attributed to a source I think.
 * Are the sources current? The sources are a tad dated I think — from the 1990s or early 2010s. A couple sources are more recent, but they appear to be newspaper articles or other websites that may not be as thorough or reliable as a journal article or book.
 * Check a few links. Do they work? Yes!

Organization
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
 * There are some casual phrases that I might suggest revising, including
 * "During these early days of cancer treatment, many many ethnical concerns were raised by patients and their families..."
 * "Family, especially family careers, and survivors, go through difficult phases of adaptation of their daily routine and lifestyle to accommodate the disease. Part of the role can include providing emotional support" (this sentence felt a little clunky).
 * "Patient advocates' presence can ensure that patient's concerns..." (some apostrophe troubles I think)
 * I also think some parts don't read as encyclopedic, like starting a sentence with "Thus"
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors? See above.
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? Again, I'm not sure about the legitimacy of bullet points? If it'd be possible to form full paragraphs rather than lists in both of your articles, that might be preferable, although I don't know the preferences of Wiki or Prof. Talwalker.

Overall impressions
Guiding questions:


 * Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete?
 * I think so! The history section is certainly improved from the shoddy original version. And the bullets the author added are effective and informative.
 * What are the strengths of the content added?
 * How can the content added be improved? Citations would be a big help I think.