ASSESSMENT 3 (Peer-Review)

Case study number

assigned to you:
Your name:
Your ID:

Section A (highlight or bold your response)

1. Overall structure (select one):
• Unclear • Vague • Organised • Very well structured

2. Demonstrates good theoretical knowledge on the problem presented (select

one):
• Poor • Fair • Good • Very Good

3. Contains relevant information showing insight in the problem. The solution

offered is based on theoretical background and scientific analysis (select one):
• Poor • Fair • Good • Very Good

4. Shows ability to plan and complete all parts of a written report that fit into the
requirements of reporting the case (select one):
• Poor • Fair • Good • Very Good

5. Meets the standards of technical writing (select one):

• Poor • Fair • Good • Very Good

6. Your overall impression (select one):

• Poor • Fair • Good • Very Good

7. General aspects of the report (select only if apply, you can select more than one):
• Too hurriedly written
• Report not set out in formal order
• Poor spelling/grammar
• Difficult to follow arguments: muddled, disorganized
Section B
Personal comments/considerations (approx. 250 words)
Please provide detailed feedback on the case study assignment. You can use the marking
rubric (which was used to mark case study) to guide you in writing your comments.
Provide suggestions for improvement, if applicable. No references required.
Start typing below this line:

Well done to submit your assignment. To review this brief discussion, I follow the rubric for
assessment. Ideas for development are mentioned below. Your presentation meets some
criteria; however, work is deficient with regards to lucidity in featuring pathophysiological
premise of CKD because of inadequately controlled well established Diabetes. Mesangial
development and expansion, podocytopathy, glomerular cellar film thickening, and sclerosis
are the four essential pathophysiological adjustments that add to diabetic nephropathy.
Utilization of writing was satisfactory.
Your content was mostly relevant and exhibited that you had fair comprehension of the
subject.

Overall presentation
Competent
Your overall structure complies with the criteria. Demonstration of language is good.
Presentation
Competent
Presents work that draws on important and relevant findings/literature to help coherent
contentions and discussions. Little issues with arranging yet able to recognize sources
utilized. Written within the word limit 10% + or – 500. This is because of compact and exact
pathological clarifications.
To ensure the format of this case study, follow the correct style of APA-7th as it presents
little difficulty to recognize paragraphs of when it comes to start with question 2.

Demonstration of comprehension, knowledge and analysis.

Proficient
Analytical content exhibits critical reasoning abilities, information, and perception, ready
to incorporate learning and apply to field of study. Shows capacity to assess
fundamentally. References that were utilized are academic norm with in-text referring to
as per the APA 7 Style.

For improvement/suggestions
 In Question 2, providing some more critical analysis of the laboratory results for
Jennifer would help answer the brief more directly.
Interpretation and application.
Proficient
Ready to critically assess and make decisions, which are practical, innovative and original.
This work shows a decent comprehension and understanding of the short given for this
evaluation. More work is required on the arranging of this case study to improve its
meaningfulness and translation.