User talk:Jmylaughter/Children's hospice/Ilovesushi16 Peer Review

Peer Review (Natan)

Is everything in the article relevant to the article topic? Is there anything that distracted you?

- Yes, everything is relevant and related to children’s hospice. It flowed nicely from services provided, US children’s hospices, and then other countries children hospices. Nice to see how other countries are compared to the US

Is the article neutral? Are there any claims, or frames, that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?

- I felt like the first paragraph of United States children’s hospices seemed a bit biased and language heavy towards physicians. However, the rest of the article seemed neutral. Maybe a discussion (if possible), about how children feel towards these decisions? For those that are old enough, of course.

Is each fact supported by an appropriate, reliable reference? Where does the information come from? Are these neutral sources? If biased, is that bias noted? Is any information out of date? Is anything missing that should be added?

- Yes, facts are supported by a reference, except in one spot where it’s noted as “citation needed”. References seem reliable, from both journals and national websites. However, some references are a bit old so it would be nice to see if any newer references mention anything different.