User:22ilovecats22/Post-chemotherapy cognitive impairment/Loyola2024 Peer Review

Peer Review:

Congratulations! Your I found your contribution highly valuable: it is relevant to the article topic, neutral, and interesting. Although it was hard to identify issues, I have identified a few areas of improvement in organization, redundancy, and sources. I've also provided a few helpful suggestions.

• Areas of Improvement
  • Organization: The beginning of the treatment section states that there are "hypothesized treatment options" and the beginning of your new section begins with "there are other proposed forms" which is somewhat confusing phrasing. Does this phrasing imply that these treatments are equally as theoretical or even less so? Are the treatments following the new section of a different "form" or are they just different treatments? Is there a reason, in terms of content, why you created a new paragraph in the first place rather than adding onto the current on? If not, I would suggest eliminating the space between these sections and removing the phrase "other proposed forms" so that there is no implied distinction between these sections. An alternative phrase such as "additional treatments" could be used.
  • Redundancy: In the new section that you contributed, you introduce CBT (cognitive behavioral therapy) as an additional treatment option. However, it had already been introduced during the first sentence of the treatment section. By introducing it again in your new section you've accidentally created a redundancy in the information provided and individuals not familiar with the lingo might confuse "CBT" and "Cognitive Behavioral Therapy" to be two distinct treatments.
  • Sources: You only use one source in your contribution and there aren't many in this section to begin with. Consider bolstering this section by adding additional relevant sources about the information present.
• Suggestions
  • To improve your organization of information and reduce redundancies you could choose to lump treatment options together in a way that contributes contextual meaning. For example, you could put the pharmacological options together, followed by a new section with the psychosocial interventions (e.g. CBT), and lastly exercise. Alternatively, you could create a bulleted list, giving each unique treatment its own line.
  • I found a source you might find helpful: Non-pharmacological interventions for cognitive impairment in women with breast cancer post-chemotherapy: A systematic review (Floyd et. al., 2021)

The below paragraph was the only contribution I could identify, I have placed it here for my reference:

There are other proposed forms of managing PCCI symptoms, one being physical activity. Studies have shown that when compared with control groups, breast cancer patients with a diagnosis within the last two years who were apart of the exercise trial group experienced improved processing speed and reduction in cognitive symptoms.  Another recommended management method is engagement in cognitive behavioral therapy, known as CBT. Patients who engage in CBT to treat CRCI routinely report improved symptoms, and studies have shown self-reported improvement of depression, anxiety, fatigue and cognitive complaints.  While these forms of management for PCCI symptoms show subjective improvements, they are less supported in regards to objective assessment and still require further testing.

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.

Whose work are you reviewing?

(provide username)

Link to draft you're reviewing

Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)

(Compose a detailed peer review here, considering each of the key aspects listed above if it is relevant. Consider the guiding questions, and check out the examples of what feedback looks like.)