User talk:Kryan8/sandbox

Keyri's Peer Review
Keyriambrocio (talk) 16:50, 1 May 2018 (UTC)
 * 1) 1 These edits are unbiased. At the end, the stereotype of depression being a woman's disease is discussed, but this is not biased because she is merely showing a perspective.
 * 2) 2 No citations are included within these edits, other than mentioning WebMD in the sentences, but there should be citations.
 * 3) 3 Each edit feels substantial because a lot of new information was added and it relates to the topic of depression. However, citations should be added.
 * 4) 4 There are a few grammatical and spelling mistakes to fix and the sentence structure is sometimes repetitive, but it is pretty clear to understand and informational.

Peer Review by Catherine
1. the information sounds neutral and unbiased. It all came from unbiased sources with straight information. 2. There are citations included, however, you do not have to state "according to WebMD" you can simply just paraphrase the information from the source you are getting it from, and then cite it with the small numbers that appear after the data. This will also add a footnote to the bottom of the article. 3. The information feels substantial and a lot of content is being added that makes a huge impact to this article. Both the text and the citations are making an impact. 4. There are a few grammatical errors that can be fixed to make the information flow more smoothly and get the information across in a more clear/concise way. Cpara2 (talk) 16:58, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

Peer Review Response
Thank you for your review.I will correct the grammar errors that there are.I am going to make the woman's disease sound biased and add information about that,argue that depression is both man and woman's disease. Include the citations that I'm missing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kryan8 (talk • contribs) 17:07, 1 May 2018 (UTC)