User:Robeckk/Child development/EmBean02 Peer Review

Lead

- Lead is good, reflects content

- Yes there is an introductory sentence

- Yes lead includes description of major sections

- No missing info

- Has a good amount of info

Content

- Content added is relevant

- Content is up to date

- Nothing missing or added that doesn't belong

- No equity gaps

Sources + References

- Content backed by sources

- Accurate reflection

- Sources are thorough and current

- Yes diverse

- Found sources that were already included

- Links work

Tone + Balance

- Content is neutral

- No opinionated claims

- No over/underrepresented claim

- Content doesn't persuade

Organization

- Content is well-written

- No errors seen

- Organized well

Overall Impressions

- Content improved quality and flow of article made the wording better

- Strengths of content are the removal of unreliable sources and removing opinionated statements

- Can be improved always by rereading and changing little things, article look good and probably doesn't need changes, I always just go over and reread to make sure everything is perfect

-

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing?

Robeckk


 * Link to draft you're reviewing
 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)
 * Child development
 * Child development

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.)