User:HighQualityWater/User:IcecreamPenguin/Pre-workout/HighQualityWater 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: LeadGuiding questions:
ContentGuiding questions:
Tone and BalanceGuiding questions:
Sources and ReferencesGuiding questions:
OrganizationGuiding questions:
Images and MediaGuiding questions: If your peer added images or media
For New Articles OnlyIf the draft you're reviewing is for a new article, consider the following in addition to the above.
Overall impressionsGuiding questions:
Examples of good feedbackA 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.
Additional Resources |
General info
edit- Whose work are you reviewing?
IcecreamPenguin
- Link to draft you're reviewing
- User:IcecreamPenguin/Pre-workout
- Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)
- Pre-workout
Evaluate the drafted changes
editLead - Lead was not copied/updated by IcecreamPenguin from original article. Since IcecreamPenguin is updating an already written article, the current lead is sufficient and does not require attention as long as all of the updates are within the scope of the current lead. If any new information/subcategories are added to article, then it would be good to update the lead to reflect that.
Content - The added content pertains to the topic and is up to date. I recommend adding to the adverse effects section, perhaps include notable legal cases against or common misconceptions concerning pre-workout. The added about creatine in the history section is nice, would be good to include why it was considered bad initially but now is accepted. Elaborate on how Synephrine specifically contributes to adverse effects if that information's out there.
Tone and Balance - The tone of the article additions is neutral, especially in the ingredients section. The tone of the phrases "considered bad" and "one of the most used" don't feel right, might be better to swap them out for facts (what's the statistic that's telling us that creatine is one of the most used supplements). The article is off balance in that the adverse effects section seems much too short.
Sources and References - The sources are current and thorough with the majority of the added sources being academic journal articles. The links work as well. Good work!
Organization - The organization is great.
Images and Media - No images or media added.
Overall Impressions - The added content improves the article, especially that added in the history section and the adverse effects section. Improvements that can still be made include expanding the adverse effects section.