User:Bzare011/User:Bzare011/New sandbox/Gammon-m Peer Review

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing?

Bzare011


 * Link to draft you're reviewing
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Bzare011/User:Bzare011/New_sandbox?veaction=edit&preload=Template%3ADashboard.wikiedu.org_draft_template
 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)
 * User:Bzare011/New sandbox

Evaluate the drafted changes
I am unsure if this is an active article or a new article due to the linking to two different sandboxes and no published article. I will be reviewing as though it is a new article.

Lead
If the lead is the section titled "Innovation in Nursing" the information covered is thorough but is not concise and does not outline the major sections of the article.

Lead could include a small introduction to the topic and an overview of the topics covered. Sticking to a small introduction as the article body will add information.

Content
The sources used are consistent with the information provided, some sources are current (2017 - present) but some older sources are used as they cover information from pre-2017.

The some of the listed content is hard to read. (ex. under innovation in Nursing - "these factors include: relative advantage; improves the status quo") Maybe could be reorganized to be more concise and cohesive?

Author is very thorough and provides sources for all added information. The added information is well written and adds to the overall content.

Tone and Balance
Overall tone is neutral, with no obvious bias toward or away from a position. The content does not feel leading or persuading at all.

Sources and References
References are present but not formatted for hyperlinks.

All content is backed up by sources and the sources are accurately represented. The sources used reflect current information available on the topic.

Links are not currently set up as hyperlinks.

Organization
Content is well-written and clear, but could be sectioned into paragraphs to be easier to read through.

Spelling and grammar are fine, no obvious issues.

Overall Impressions
The content is informative and thorough, it could use some paragraph separation to be easier to read overall.

Well sourced and proper citations.

Could use a format and addition of hyperlinks for the final copy.