User:SaifT10/Electromagnetic radiation/CurtisEmery Peer Review

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing?

(provide username)


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

Evaluate the drafted changes
Lead

I would like to firstly note how this student took an article that had vast amounts of information regarding a topic that isn't generally well understood by the general public and further managed to break it up throughout the entirety of the article, including the lead. As such, I thought the lead was well done and provided a concise introduction that mentioned the general topic that was to be addressed within the article to follow, while providing the article consumer a brief description regarding the theory of Electromagnetic Radiation. Moreover, although the intro was pretty much finished by a previous editor, I liked how this student altered the introduction by not only ensuring the introduction clearly identifies and provides a brief overview of the topic under analysis but also included or mentioned the content and sections that the student added later on within the article. On the other hand, I feel that the student editor could have possibly added some transition words to provide a smoother read as I found the introduction to be slightly choppy or stilted.

Content

Overall, the content section produced by this author was very well done. In greater depth, the user SaifT10 edited the content section of this article regarding “Non-polar versus circularly polarized light” in a fashion that held consistent and relevant to the topic of electromagnetic radiation. Additionally, this user took previous edits of this article within the content section and split them up under subheading. Subsequently, the rearranged content section not only provided a more concise and easier read for the consumer but also oriented the previous edits or altered the overall structure of the content section to properly flow into their added edits. Furthermore, according to the sources added by user SaifT10, all the information is up to date and has been identified in recent studies/articles that have been documented within the past five to seven years. Lastly, although I do not have significant knowledge surrounding the theory of electromagnetic radiation, I still feel that the theory is so complex that there is indeed still information that could be added to this article. In other words, I don't think the 500-word requirement needed for our course's purposes could fully explain all concepts surrounding the theory; however, maybe the editor could add some very brief notes and headings of other concepts for future editors to expand on."

Tone and Balance

The tone of this article, along with the material added by user SaifT10, is definitely neutral and veers away from implementing any biases or “right” or “wrong” for a given concept. The user/editor SaifT10 stuck to the facts provided by viable sources to ensure all concepts were represented without an opinion. Further, user SaifT10 was ultimately transparent with where they got their information or content from to evoke even more neutrality and feasibility within the article's content. In other words, the user managed to provide or edit additional information supporting and explaining the concept of electromagnetic radiation while ensuring the information never alluded to one side of a contrary belief in the theory or persuaded the reader into thinking one concept was more valuable than the other. On the other hand, I think the only thing that I suggest should be added is one additional “negative effect of EM fields on human health” as there are only two opposed to the three positive effects listed prior. As such, providing one less negative impact on health in comparison to three positives might allude to the reader to think that electromagnetic radiation is generally good for humans, and I believe this is not the case.

Sources and References

Ultimately, the sources and references included by user SaifT10 along with previous editors are very well done. Moreover, all content included within the article is supported by a reliable secondary source of information that demonstrates factual information of the topic at hand. After referring to the sources strictly added in by user SaifT10, all the content that this user edited into the article stays true and consistent with the information found within their referenced secondary sources. Further, the sources used were quite thorough, although for the source "Characterization of electromagnetic interference of medical devices in the hospital due to cell phones," a couple of additional steps and downloads were needed to actually see the full article, which may be problematic for a user trying to find the original source of information. Lastly, all the sources provided and referenced by user SaifT10 are peer-reviewed, with recognized and diversified authors, and are all from recent studies to validate that the concepts added to this study are up to date.