User talk:Joseita Tesolin/Virtual reality/Umiuottawa Peer Review

Hello Joseita. I have read your article and found it very informative. I congratulate you on the amazing work you have done on organizing and structuring the article. Due to the subsections you created, the new article is very clear and organized. Some of the other strengths of your article that I have noted are: -	 The additional content you created about VR in the field of Education was relevant. Initial article included only a very brief paragraph on benefits of VR but didn’t elaborate on the topic. I am currently editing a technology section of the ESL article and have included a paragraph about VR. I think I will add a link to your article for readers who would like to learn more about applications of VR. -	You have addressed the ethical issue of using animals in surgical education and how VR could be the solution. -	You have included potential challenges along with benefits. You touched upon the issues related to the cost of the equipment and correspondence to the curriculum.

Couple of suggestions that I have are: 1. The lead could be expanded a bit more to include your new content about education. Current lead only focuses on consumer uses of VR, which doesn’t encompass all the information provided. 2. My personal perception of the added content was that it was in favour of the use of VR. As in the following example sentences there was slight bias. “For many researchers, VR has the potential to be a powerful new tool in the classroom.” “Teaching anatomy using 3D images is more effective than trying to teach anatomy using only 2D images.” I understand that talking about practical applications of VR without mentioning the outcomes and benefits is pretty much impossible. However, I would suggest to look into possibilities of trying to make the tone a bit more neutral. Umiuottawa (talk) 10:12, 26 November 2021 (UTC)