User:Thomas Simbo K./Telehealth/Mahimasinha Peer Review

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing?

Thomas Simbo K.


 * Link to draft you're reviewing
 * Draft


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

Evaluate the drafted changes
Lead: No changes to lead section. I do not think any changes are necessary because the lead section in the article is clear and concise.

Content: The content added is relevant to the article. The section on health promotion introduces scholarly sources that provide examples. Additionally, the limitations and restrictions section discusses many new perspectives on telehealth. The content on examples of telehealth in developing countries is relevant and new. Most information seems up to date as many articles are from 2019 and 2020.

Tone and Balance: The tone is neutral and represents multiple viewpoints, but sentences can be wordy at times. Some parts of the Health Promotion section are difficult to follow. Sometimes there is an essay-style of voice instead of an encyclopedic voice. For example, the limitations and restrictions section could be edited to have a more encyclopedic voice.

Sources: 6 sources cited and writing is well cited. The content accurately reflects sources. Most of the sources are from the 2010's, so they are current. There are sources as recent as 2019, 2020, and 2021. The sources are from a diverse spectrum of authors and journals.

Organization: Content is well organized. It is well-written, but some portions are wordy and difficult to follow. Few grammatical and spelling errors.

Images and Media: Added one image, but unable to put into article. Unable to determine which image they would like to include from the article linked.

Overall impressions: The additions support the current article and add relevant content/examples. The added content diversifies the perspectives in the article. The added content can be improved by using a more encyclopedic voice and limiting wordiness.