User:Lshersh/Prosthesis/Cummin98 Peer Review

The additions to the article convey ideas, but they often utilize emotionally charged language rather than the neutral language that Wikipedia encourages its users to utilize. I was, however, satisfied with the information provided by the content. I do wonder if more sources would be necessary though, as there are assumptions made without proper references. For future change, I would recommend altering the language of the article to convey information in a more neutral manner and add more sources to bolster your notability and arguments.

The structure of the article was relatively clear, although some of the titles could have been improved. The coverage is balanced even if the language is not neutral. Other than that, the sections are well organized and presented well. I believe the section lengths are proportional to their varying levels of importance for the most part. The information is mostly straightforward. There is some roundabout language, but that can be easily edited.

I do think I could guess the perspective of the author by reading this article. The information remains hopeful and tries to make the reader feel pity for people who lose extremities and pursue prosthesis to aid their disability. As aforementioned, I do draw concern to the emotionally charged language, but I am certain it will be addressed in the future.

Regardless, the author has made great progress. Keep up the good work.

General info
(provide username)
 * Whose work are you reviewing?


 * Link to draft you're reviewing:
 * 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.)