User:Kfreda/Weathering hypothesis/Cek78 Peer Review

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing?

Kfreda


 * Link to draft you're reviewing
 * User:Kfreda/Weathering hypothesis
 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)
 * Weathering hypothesis

Evaluate the drafted changes
Lead:

- I think this group did a really good job at adding to the lead of this article, especially because the original one is extremely short

- I think the group did a good job at adding important information, but not making the lead too long or detailed

Content:

- In addition to the lead, I think the group's decision to also add to the Origin section was crucial

- The Origin section in the original article was sparse and lacked a lot of information

- Adding an entire section on the link between this hypothesis and health disparities was a really great addition too because it help put into context how this hypothesis is supported by real data

Tone and Balance:

- All of the information that was added seemed very unbiased and neutral

- Especially the addition of the "Criticisms and Related Theories" section helped not sway the reader in a particular direction because it discussed the pushback this theory received and showed both sides

Sources and References:

- The sources this group used seem to all be reliable and current, a lot of them even being from 2021!

- I think this group also did a great job summarizing what was in their sources

Organization:

- I did not find any grammatical or spelling errors

- The writing was overall clear and concise and easy to follow

- I think how the sections are set up make a lot of sense and form more of a narrative than the original article had

Overall Impressions:

- Overall, this group make extremely important additions to the original article

- The original article did not mention really any of the background or underlying health disparities that intersect with this hypothesis so deeply

- This group did a great job balancing adding important information, but not adding too much to the point that the article starts to become more about something completely different, and not the hypothesis itself

- Great job overall!!!