User talk:Rjxue/sandbox

Peer Review by Hye Won Yoon

--> Area:Art Education in the United States & Sector: Arts Integration

General comment for both Area and Sector: Both articles are well-organized and I can clearly understand what you are trying to say. Also, I liked how, before you started making additions to each article, wrote short paragraphs about what original Wikipedia articles are lacking and what you could do to make it better. It showed me, before I started reading your additions, what I should look for in your additions to each articles. Nice!

Comments for Area: Your paragraph is in chronological order and it is well-written. You wrote about how in the 1970s, art education was limited - would it be possible to add in few more details about ways in which it was limited? Also, why was art education so limited? Was there a certain value that people hold during the time that ignored value of art education? Adding these few sentences will, hopefully, enrich your paragraph. Also, adding statistical data might be helpful - for example, you say that there was a budget cut - how much percent? I know this might seem small and trivial changes but I feel like it would provide readers with more credibility. Also, when numbers are included, it is easier for readers to picture - for instance, if the budget cut was 60%, readers are much more likely to react while they are reading, opposed to just saying that there was a budget cut.

Comments for Sector: First of all, nice job making it very clear which sections you are planning to add on to.It is good that you are presenting two main opposing views because this reduces change of having biases. One suggestion that would make this section better is to include a few sentences about the National Core Arts Standards - I see that you have hyperlinked it but it might be better if you decide to just write few examples of what those 'art standards' are. Another suggestion could be to include instances of advocacy. This would make your paragraph a lot stronger, with a concrete example. I feel like it will also make readers understand your article better. For example, was there any specific case of tension that you can talk about? Just giving you some ideas to think upon. As for the 'Academic Effects' section, one suggestion that I would like to make is to add a few more details to what this exploratory study is about and who conducted it. Your article will be a lot more credible if you decide to do so. If your original Wikipedia article has already explained about this study, then you don't need to! I like how you are explaining how the study has allowed students to do. It is very clear and well-organized. Serendipity305 (talk) 20:30, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

Peer Review by Precious

You do a great job in outlining how you'll provide value in your "Summarizing & Synthesizing" portion of your WikiR. As a reader, I concluded that you have a depth understanding of your sector article & how it can improve.

As for potential improvements, you might want to look into how exactly the National Core Arts Standards "reflect fluctuations in advocacy rhetoric". On top of that, exploring how "under-funded" the educational arts programs are compared to sports might be a huge value add to your synthesis.

Lastly, the additions to your area article will be stronger if you can provide striking data that shows the scarcity of art programs in the US around 1980s and 1990s. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Preshlistana (talk • contribs) 18:32, 2 November 2017 (UTC)