User:Alaynna2023/Single-subject research/Leanna321 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?
Alaynna2023
- Link to draft you're reviewing
- User:Alaynna2023/sandbox
- Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)
- Single-subject research
Evaluate the drafted changes
editI could not find a draft article but I think there are plenty of ways you could improve this article! After reading the current article, I didn’t really understand what a single-subject research any more than I did before, but that might just be me. Maybe finding a better definition as well as connecting the subsections to the subject of single-subject research would clarify the meaning more. I also feel like the article could be a lot more organized. I feel like adding one large section called Research designs or maybe Research methods, then moving all of the different designs covered into that section would make the article much more digestible. I also feel like some sections are a little bare and need more information, like the “Repeated acquisition” section and those that come afterwards. The “Brief” section also is written unclear to me, so you could reword that maybe. I think there are also some areas in the References section that you could improve, like adding ISBN numbers or DOI for some of the sources (#2 and #13) but maybe some of the articles cited are too old to have one of these. I also noticed a few statements in the article were marked as needing a citation, so you could look for some information supporting those.