User:JennaHCesar/Intuitive eating/WikiUser481 Peer Review

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing?

JennaHCesar


 * Link to draft you're reviewing
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:JennaHCesar/Intuitive_eating?veaction=edit&preload=Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org_draft_template


 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)
 * Intuitive eating

Evaluate the drafted changes
Lead

The Lead has been improved to show changes made to the article

"Intuitive eating helps to create a positive attitude towards food, physical activity, and the body." This is a nice introduction to the topic. I feel there is not a sentence talking about how this article will go over the ten principals which could be important to include. The lead also does not include a brief description of what we will go over in the article, however it does do an amazing job of giving background to the user.

Content

The content added is up to date and the addition to the principals section adds relevant suggestions so that the readers can apply it to everyday life. Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? I think they covered everything I think the only thing that concerns me is the addition of the drawbacks and limitations. It is a good section if it is fully factual, however a line such as "having one eat what they want by listening to what their body needs, and fostering self-acceptance and love for one's body" sounds more opinionated which may not be fit for wikipedia. Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics? I don't think it really needs to. Diet was never a thing for specific people, eating was done by everyone just like breathing or drinking as it is important to survive. So no, the article does not address topics related to underrepresented populations but it doesn't really need to.

Tone and Balance

Yes the content added is neutral and it is factual, other than the drawbacks it is very neutral which can allow the article to feel more inclusive. Sentences such as "Intuitive eating heavily encourage s the concept that everyone's body is different- bodies come in all shapes and sizes. It furthers the idea of self-acceptance and self-love." show a sense of comfort which allows the reader to trust the topic. I think the drawbacks and limitations may cause those wanting to follow the principals to get discouraged. So this claim may be a bit bias. This obviously was not intentional, however when speaking of something like intuitive eating it is probably best to not devote a whole section to why it may not work. However sentences such as "Both historically and found today, many accusations and trends circulate around the topic of food, diet, and what is considered healthy or unhealthy." may push the opinion that hey junk food is bad leaning the reader into wanting to follow this diet. I think all viewpoints are represented fairly, the article includes both positive and negatives, it leans towards more positives but it needs to in order to describe the topic and what goes into intuitive eating. The viewpoint of self love is shown "Intuitive eating heavily encourage s the concept that everyone's body is different- bodies come in all shapes and sizes. It furthers the idea of self-acceptance and self-love.". The viewpoint of why this may be helpful is shown throughout the article "Intuitive eating also incorporates a wellness and holistic approach to living a more healthier and happier life" which promotes this diet. Along with this the opposing view of why not is also shown "However, being that intuitive eating doesn't contain the end-goal of weight loss, there still isn't enough sufficient researched evidence that intuitive eating can assist with weight loss long-term, or even maintain that weight loss.".

Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another? I do not think so. Everything is factual and it is stating things in a relevant way that allows you to get informed on the topic and yes it may leave you wanting to follow the principals. However this is because you already come with the intention and curiosity of learning more. That is the nature of the article.

Sources and References

I think the sources are okay. One seems to be a blog, another seems to be a Cleveland Clinic, and the last is a really good source aka the NIH. I think the new content is backed up by sources that could be improved, Cleveland Clinic is okay, NIH is very good but the blog may need to be changed.

Yes, the content does reflect what the sources say. It uses the sources most in the principals article which allow you to check it with the Cleveland Clinic. It was accurate the the original with paraphrasing. However I think maybe citing them in each principal rather than once at the top would have been better.

The sources are thorough and reflect on the literature. They are relative to the topic and are current. They are written in 2019, 2021, and 2022 which is really recent which makes them good sources.

The sources are written by researchers, medical researcher, and researchers who have included historic references. Those references are not shown in the article but the authors themselves are diverse

I think it's really easy to replace the blog post however the main bulk of references being the NIH and Clinic articles are okay and do not need better sources to replace them. The links work!

Organization

It is very well written, the flow of the article is done well. We go from an introduction about what it is and then principals of how to apply them, finally going into drawbacks and limitations. The flow organization is done really well. The content added is well-organized and broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic. The content added does not have any grammatical or spelling errors. There are no images added.

Overall impressions

I think the content added allows the article to be more complete. It is a major improvement to before. So it is nice! I liked the addition to the principals. It is a key aspect of the article and needed more information on it. Adding the information completes about 80% of what the original article needed. The strengths are the fact that the added material is informative. I read the first article and didn't really feel like I knew about the topic, however learning more in the revised version helped me feel like "oh this is a topic I am knowledgeable about now!"

Overall feedback:

I would remove the self love sections in the article that can cause bias, if they apply to that principal make it more neutral.

I would find another article that is not a blog post, a more factual article would be nice

Try to find one that is a review of a scientific study following this diet which can be used as a reflection page for the reader to see what is to come, this could be right before drawbacks so the reader can see the journey