User:Lopezj17/Brain and Writing/Akornowski Peer Review

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing?

Lopezj17


 * Link to draft you're reviewing
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Lopezj17/Brain_and_Writing?veaction=edit&preload=Template%3ADashboard.wikiedu.org_draft_template


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

Evaluate the drafted changes
(Compose a detailed peer review here, considering each of the key aspects listed above if it is relevant. Consider the guiding questions, and check out the examples of what feedback looks like.)

akornowski peer review:

Lead: The lead contains one sentence. This I snot enough information. The intro senetence does not concisely explain the topic as a whole. It does not include the major sections that will be covered. The lead is vague and I would suggest adding new information that gives a summary of each topic that will follow in the article.

Content: the content added is relevant to the topic. I would say there is missing content. The information added is extremely brief and needs to be expanded upon. For example, “Writing has effected the organization of the human brain” is a very general statement that needs more details and explanation after it.

Tone and balance: The content added is neutral. There seem to be no biased claims. The section on brain conditions is underrepresented. I would suggest that section be expanded to cover how writing helps multiple brain disorders/conditions.

Sources: All sources seem to be reliable. The .gov source is the best in my opinion. I would recommend adding more .gov sites from other medical organizations. The second site I would recommend removing because not all people will have access if they are not enrolled students. The third source (.gov) specifically has a lot of great information that I think can be expanded upon in the wiki article. The information added so far has been accurately written from the source. The sources are reliable and up to date. Again, I would suggest that there are other great sources available such as medical sites and government agencies.

Organization: The sections are easy to read. I think the sections can be broken down and then more sections can be added.

Images: No images.

New Articles: The sources need to be expanded. There are no article links. I suggest adding these!

Impression:  The article is short in length and needs to be expanded. The strengths are the topics and getting on the right track with sourcing.