User:Annatardecilla/Health education/Malevy14 Peer Review

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing?

Annatardecilla/Health education


 * Link to draft you're reviewing
 * Editing User:Annatardecilla/Health education - Wikipedia


 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)
 * Health education - Wikipedia

Evaluate the drafted changes
Everything McKenzie and Anna wrote was relevant to the topic. they explained were there draft could possibly fit on the Wikipedia page of health education. They went into specific detail on the topic and added information that wasn't part of the Wikipedia page yet and was useful information were people might be interested in. the article was written with a neutral standpoint the authors didn't pick a side and only provided facts. they kept it short and concise and did not over or underrepresent their topics. also, all the sources they used to acquire their information was put in the citation below their draft. within these citations they provided link that work to visit the sources that support the claims that were made in the article. each fact that was stated in the article is supported by a reliable reference and sources. the source doesn't seem bias as far as I can tell and seem to be from trustworthy websites. a few of the sources aren't recent but they are used to state facts of the time period were in the event happened or like the health education intervention strategies paper: recommendations for future research are from 1995 but is still relevant to the article as where it doesn't matter that it is an older source.