User:Kennedif00/Chronic pain/Hollyb98 Peer Review

Peer review

Complete your peer review exercise below, providing as much constructive criticism as possible. The more detailed suggestions you provide, the more useful it will be to your classmate. Make sure you consider each of the following aspects:

Lead

Guiding questions:

Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer?
Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?
Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?

Content

Guiding questions:

Is the content added relevant to the topic?
Is the content added up-to-date?
Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics?

Tone and Balance

Guiding questions:

Is the content added neutral?
Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?

Sources and References

Guiding questions:

Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
Does the content accurately reflect what the cited sources say? (You'll need to refer to the sources to check this.)
Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
Are the sources current?
Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible?
Are there better sources available, such as peer-reviewed articles in place of news coverage or random websites? (You may need to do some digging to answer this.)
Check a few links. Do they work?

Organization

Guiding questions:

Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors?
Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?

Images and Media

Guiding questions: If your peer added images or media

Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic?
Are images well-captioned?
Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations?
Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way?

For New Articles Only

If the draft you're reviewing is for a new article, consider the following in addition to the above.

Does the article meet Wikipedia's Notability requirements - i.e. Is the article supported by 2-3 reliable secondary sources independent of the subject?
How exhaustive is the list of sources? Does it accurately represent all available literature on the subject?
Does the article follow the patterns of other similar articles - i.e. contain any necessary infoboxes, section headings, and any other features contained within similar articles?
Does the article link to other articles so it is more discoverable?

Overall impressions

Guiding questions:

Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete?
What are the strengths of the content added?
How can the content added be improved?

Examples of good feedback

A good article evaluation can take a number of forms. The most essential things are to clearly identify the biggest shortcomings, and provide specific guidance on how the article can be improved.

Peer review of "Homemaking"
Peer review of this article about a famous painting

Additional Resources

Check out the Editing Wikipedia PDF for general editing tips and suggestions.

General info[edit]

Whose work are you reviewing?

Kennedif00

Link to draft you're reviewing: Kennedif00/Chronic
Link to the current version of the article (if it exists): Chronic pain

Evaluate the drafted changes[edit]

There is no reason to define the term chronic since it is already defined in the lead paragraph. The addition was not clear it was about "how people come to accept chronic pain and the avenues people can go through to accomplish acceptance". It seems the new information tries to summarize too many aspects of the journal instead of wording explicitly what the journal accomplished to do or the greater implication of the journal to daily life.

Here are some ideas moving forward to improve the established article. The article does cover a wide variety of the aspects of chronic pain. Nearly all of the information and statements made in the article have a good reference. The article allows the reader to understand a multitude about the subject without completely overwhelming the reader. The article does not seem to have a strong lead paragraph concisely summarizing/outlining the article. it immediately goes into defining discussing acute vs chronic pain then into the origin of chronic pain in the body. there could be different sections... gets too into the weeds about the intricacies of chronic pain too soon. Under the heading opioids it would be interesting to the the correlation between opioids prescribed to those with chronic pain and the likelihood of future addiction. In addition, there may be an opportunity to shed light on the opioid crisis. There seems to be little information in this section, leaving the reader ill informed about the use of opioids. In the section of alternative medicines there is an opportunity to add meditation to the list since has not been mentioned for its effectiveness. In the section under personality an interesting journal to search would be the effect of meditation on catastrophization and how that affects chronic pain in patients. Whether or not the correlation is significant it would be worth mentioning to the reader the current findings on the topic. In the section of epidemiology there is no mention as to why women are more susceptible to chronic pain; there may be research on the topic. There is also no mention of the ages this mostly takes effect on. Under the heading Outcomes there is a citation needed about the potential effects of interactions of medications due to multiple doctors treating the same patent. This could be deleted or better evidence can be found for this claim.In the section of psychology and comorbidity with trauma there is little talk about the somatic expression that trauma enacts on the body when not properly expressed; more could be added in this area. The already established science behind it may be worth mentioning.There is also not much mention of the founders and pioneers behind the science of chronic pain.