User:Jerseryq/Literacy in the United States/Ahmyers10 Peer Review

Peer review

This is where you will complete your peer review exercise. Please use the following template to fill out your review.

General info

Whose work are you reviewing? (provide username) Jerseryq
Link to draft you're reviewing: User:Jerseryq/sandbox

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?

Lead evaluation

Not creating a new article - not applicable.

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?

Content evaluation

The content does seem relevant to the overall article and based on the sources, the information also appears to be current and updated. I think some sentences are more vague than others - for example, it is hard to tell if the last two sentences are being mentioned as general fact or if they are in relation to Head Start. It would also be helpful if there was more information surrounding how Head Start was formed (who started it, was it a product of Clinton's policy? etc.).

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?

Tone and balance evaluation

From my point of view, the content seems very neutral and objective. However near the end of the section it seems almost so unbiased to the point of lacking detail, so I think certain aspects could be expanded on such as the 1st and last two sentences. I would be more interested in knowing how the literacy standards came to be, the impact of Clinton's policy and the influence Head Start had on improving literacy (just two or three sentences more explaining these deeper). The last sentence seems to suggest an opinion with "should", so replacing that word could easily fix it.

Sources and References

Guiding questions:

Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
Are the sources current?
Check a few links. Do they work?

Sources and references evaluation

Everything is very well cited! The sources also seem very reliable/scholarly and have been written fairly recently. I do not see any room for improvement here.

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?

Organization evaluation

I think the new section is very readable and straight-forward but I think it would benefit from having some more clarity on how the different events and facts connect to one another - reading it feels somewhat choppy and I can't completely tell what parts speak to literacy in general or the specific events being mentioned. Also, ordering events more chronologically could possibly help as well.

Here is an example of a few adjustments I would make to the sentence structures:

The same school curriculums and literacy standards are given to all students in the same grade level regardless of socioeconomic background. This often leads to English language learners and children from low income families falling behind in relation to their peers. A number of resources were created to support these socioeconomically disadvantaged students, including those with free/reduced lunch who are known to score low reading levels. Confronting this issue, in 1997 President Bill Clinton proposed for tutors to work with children reading below their grade level. These tutoring programs include partnerships with university organizations in which college students tutor and develop the literacy skills of elementary school students. One of the programs is Head Start, which was created in 1964 for children and families living under the poverty line to prepare children under 5 for elementary school and provide their family support for their health, nutrition, and social services. Through this, teachers spend a majority of their class time reading and supporting struggling readers. Students should be provided with books that are at their level and books they can find a personal connection to engage with the text.

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?

Images and media evaluation

No new media - not applicable.

For New Articles Only

If the draft you're reviewing is 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?

New Article Evaluation

Not creating a new article - not applicable.

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?

Overall evaluation

The overall content is good and the contributions are definitely valuable to the article as a whole! I think there is a just a bit of room for more detail on the topics being brought up and clarification of what aspects of U.S. literacy you are expanding on. A more in depth analysis paired with slight restructuring could make it stronger, but overall good job!