User:Pothosjoy3/Cancer-related fatigue/22ilovecats22 Peer Review

General info
Pothosjoy3
 * Whose work are you reviewing?


 * Link to draft you're reviewing
 * User:Pothosjoy3/Cancer-related fatigue
 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)
 * Cancer-related fatigue

Evaluate the drafted changes
Content -

The content is definitely relevant to the original article. There was a lot of extremely vague information in the article such as "nearly ALL patients experience fatigue", and "dying people sleep more than health people", with absolutely no citations. The student added citations to many claims that clearly needed a source to back it up. The content added in regards to management is very beneficial and fits in well with the existing content. The student specified which types of physical activity are most beneficial in managing fatigue, and also provided specific drugs/medicines that may improve symptoms of fatigue, as well as those that have not been seen to work. I think adding to the management section was very helpful because many people likely go to this page seeking information on how to improve their symptoms and information like this could truly improve their quality of life.

Tone -

The content added is neutral, and does not appear to overly push any type of approach to treating cancer related fatigue. It also is very honest with using words like "may" instead of making strong claims that a certain approach will definitely provide positive results.

Sources -

All of the information is backed up by reliable sources and accurately reflects the data from them. The student is currently using 9 different sources, which I think is a great number to be working with and they appear to cover the available literature on the topic. As for how current they are, the sources typically range from 2010-2014, so I would be interested to see if the student could find any novel data from 2020 and later. The articles are high quality and peer reviewed. The first link took me to a PDF that I had to have access to see, and the second link was a deadline for me, but other than that, the rest of the links worked.

Organization -

The content is worded well, easy to digest, and has no spelling errors. There were certain sections where the student noted that they plan to add on to that area at a later time, so I would love to revisit the article again when there is even more information to read!

Overall impression -

I think your contributions so far are really going to bump up the status of the article. Like I previously stated, there are a lot of claims that needed sources behind them, and I love that you were able to find the needed information. I also liked that you used many sources to back up your own information that you added, which gives another level of reliability and professionalism. I also really enjoyed what you've added to the management section to give a bit of hope to a somewhat bleak article. I would like to see you potentially add more information to the screening section, like what screening looks like for patients after treatment and not just on the first visit, if patients are satisfied with the level of screening they receive, and also look for some information on what a symptom journal is that you can add! Overall, great job and I am eager to see more of your work.