User:Lenunn/Disenfranchised grief/Cokelley710 Peer Review

Peer review
This is where you will complete your peer review exercise. Please use the following template to fill out your review.

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing? (provide username) Lenunn
 * Link to draft you're reviewing: User:Lenunn/sandbox

Lead
Guiding questions:


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer? Yes, lead has been updated to include relevant information.
 * 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? Yes
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? Yes
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? Concise

Lead evaluation
The lead has been appropriately updated to include content that is relevant to the topic. The author has done a good job of crossing out details that are better suited for the content area of the article instead of the lead.

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic? Yes, author included content information for background, loss, relationships, application and critiques.
 * Is the content added up-to-date? Yes.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? No.

Content evaluation
The content is appropriate and substantial. I like the additions that the author has included. I am not certain that the subheadings of "Loss" and "Relationships" accurately reflect the content in the sections. Once reading the sections, it is clear that the author is attempting to separate grief within relationships from other, but the use of the term "loss" gets confusing, as there is loss in all of the situations. Is there another term that could be used for the non-human relationship losses?'

I would like to see more within the application section that talks about current and potential research on the topic within the field of relational communication.

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral? Yes
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? No.
 * 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.

Tone and balance evaluation
The author does a good job of adding neutral content from legitimate sources (articles, textbooks) that are neutral in their approach.

Sources and References
Guiding questions:


 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? Yes
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? Yes
 * Are the sources current? Yes
 * Check a few links. Do they work? Yes, both the wiki links and external links worked.

Sources and references evaluation
The author used appropriate sources to update the content of the article. Sources were taken from textbooks and articles. While the concept was established in the 1980s, the author has found newer articles that study disenfranchised grief and show the relevance of the topic today. The references were appropriately cited in the article and the links worked.

Organization
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? Yes
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors? Few, but not many
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? Yes

Organization evaluation
I like the organization especially in the Relationships section. I would like to see similar organization within the "Loss" section. The article is mostly error free. There are a few sentences that read choppy, as they were likely added, but not updated within the context of the paragraph. Here's an example: Loss of home security of well being has been studied in a population older homeless people.

Images and Media
Guiding questions: If your peer added images or media


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic? No
 * Are images well-captioned? N/A
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations? N/A
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way? N/A

Images and media evaluation
This article does not include any images.

For New Articles Only
If the draft you're reviewing is a new article, consider the following in addition to the above.


 * Does the article meet Wikipedia's Notability requirements - i.e. Is the article supported by 2-3 reliable secondary sources independent of the subject?
 * How exhaustive is the list of sources? Does it accurately represent all available literature on the subject?
 * Does the article follow the patterns of other similar articles - i.e. contain any necessary infoboxes, section headings, and any other features contained within similar articles?
 * Does the article link to other articles so it is more discoverable?

New Article Evaluation
This is not a new article.

Overall impressions
Guiding questions:


 * Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete? Definitely
 * What are the strengths of the content added? Yes
 * How can the content added be improved? A thorough proof read and a few more details

Overall evaluation
Overall, I think the author has done a great job of strengthening this article. I think that the article overall could use a thorough proof reading for small technical errors. I would like to see the "loss" section re-labled to better understand the content there. Finally, I think there could be a bit more said about the application of the topic within research already conducted, and research that could be done within Relational Communication.