User:CosmicMasquerade-2000/Activity tracker/RoxanneLIS Peer Review

General info
CosmicMasquerade-2000
 * Whose work are you reviewing?


 * Link to draft you're reviewing:User:CosmicMasquerade-2000/Activity tracker
 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists):Activity tracker

Evaluate the drafted changes
Lead

Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer?

Yes, extensive changes have been made to the Lead with new content added.

Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?

Yes.

Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?

No—I would suggest that a summary of the major article subheadings be included in the Lead: History, Wearable Sensors, Performance, and Medical Uses.

Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?

No.

Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?

The Lead is concise.

Content

Is the content added relevant to the topic?

''Yes. Relevant content has been added, most significantly in the Lead and the History sections.''

Is the content added up-to-date?

''New content has citations 2, 3, 4, and 26. Citations number 2, 3, and 4 are from 2014. Citation number 26 is from 2011. I think the content dealing specifically with products could be more current. For example, the statement about “new activity trackers” developed by Valencell is from a 2014 article; probably there is more current information available about trackers that use ear sensors.''

Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?

''There doesn’t appear to be content that doesn’t belong. As far as missing information, I would just suggest some updates would likely be appropriate.''

Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics?

The content does not deal with equity gaps and is not related to historically underrepresented populations or topics.

Tone and Balance

Is the content added neutral?

Yes, the content added is neutral.

Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?

I don’t see any heavily biased claims.

Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?

No.

Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?

No.

Sources and References

Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?

''Citations 7 and 8 are associated with the bulk of the new content, and citation 7 is for a systematic review. More systematic review content is always a good thing if available. It looks like a search strategy has been developed (after the See Also section) so it will be interesting to see if that yields any good sources.''

Does the content accurately reflect what the cited sources say?

I checked citations 37 and 38; in both cases, the content was an accurate reflection of the source cited.

Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?

I imagine there is more literature available on the topic.

Are the sources current?

''The main critique of the article is that the content is not as current as it could be. With technological content I think the burden on the writers and editors to continually make updates is more significant than it is for other, more abstract topics. Many of the sources cited are archived at the Wayback Machine, a sure sign of the need for updates.''

Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible?

''This is hard to say with certainty. There seems to be a diversity of voices from countries other than the U.S., but I don’t know if some of the authors are from marginalized groups.''

Are there better sources available, such as peer-reviewed articles in place of news coverage or random websites?

Many of the articles cited are from the popular literature—sources like Wired, Wall Street Journal and PC Magazine. However, a good number of them are from peer-reviewed journals (JAMA, British Journal of Sports Medicine, etc.) ''and a few are systematic reviews. I think for a topic like this it is perfectly acceptable to have a mix of popular and peer-reviewed literature.''

Check a few links. Do they work?

''The links I checked were functional. However, the link for citation 30 led to an updated website article, published 11/23/23, rather than the originally cited article from 12/27/15, so that citation can be updated.''

Organization

Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?

''The added content could be tightened up. For example, I would change this, from the first paragraph of the History section:''

“When taking into account the well-being of the subject, subjective scales are involved which measure fatigue, sleep quality, emotions, and soreness.”

To: “Subjective scales are used to measure the athlete’s well-being, including fatigue, sleep quality, emotions, and soreness.”

Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors?

''There are a few grammatical errors. For example, the below (from the second sentence of the lead) is a sentence fragment:''

“Used for many groups even animals as seen in collar-mounted activity trackers for dogs.”

Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?

Yes, the content is well-organized and placed in the appropriate sections of the topic.

Images and Media

''No new images were added to the article. I did check the origin of the two existing images and they are a bit dated, especially the Fitbit Surge, which is from 2015. I would suggest replacing it with a current Fitbit image if there is one readily available on Wikipedia Commons.''