|
|
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.
Whose work are you reviewing?
lcwest, Nickarrueb, QuickPeanut, and Unojlpetkov.
Link to draft you're reviewing
Education Reform Sandbox
Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)
Education reform
Evaluate the drafted changes[edit]Guiding questions:
- Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer? Yes, they've moved some of their portions into the live Wikipedia article.
- Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic? It includes introductory paragraphs that give a sense of what educational reform is and what steps they're taking to ensure it is effective.
- Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections? The leading paragraphs do not specifically state what is going to be talked about, but it hints at some of the topics discussed below.
- Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? There is some information presented in the leading paragraphs that is not presented in the rest of the context, like certain abstract reformists, A. B. Alcott, etc.
- Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? I think it is slightly too much information to be considered a lead (it's a few paragraphs), but overall, it's informative and gives you a little overview of what education reform is. So, for someone trying to get a quick idea, it's good to just read the lead for that.
Guiding questions:
- Is the content added relevant to the topic? There is a lot of information added in that describe the history of education reform and key events in that history, such as specific dates, why they're relevant, etc.
- Is the content added up-to-date? I think the content is up to date.
- Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? In the sandbox, there is a section titled the History of Public School Reform. The group opted to not use it, but I think it would go hand in hand with the history of education reform and legislation because they both talk about the history of it. Maybe they can be merged together or subparagraphed together under the same general idea of the history of reform.
- Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics? Education reform is a topic that deals with equity, however, it's not a topic that's brought up in this specific sandbox draft.
Guiding questions:
- Is the content added neutral? I believe the content to be neutral and fact based.
- Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? The overall tone of the draft depicts fact over opinion and bias.
- Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? I think there is no viewpoint under or over represented here.
- Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another? The content just describes the general overview of what education reform is, the history, how it's evolved, what people have done to try and change it, etc.
Sources and References[edit]Guiding questions:
- Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? Yes.
- Does the content accurately reflect what the cited sources say? (You'll need to refer to the sources to check this.) For the one's that I checked, the content was accurately paraphrased and quoted. It didn't stray from the information or present assumptions.
- Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? Yes.
- Are the sources current? For the most part. Some of them deal with historical cases or historical facts regarding education reform, though.
- Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible? The sources vary from the Supreme Court to basic .com websites like study.com.
- 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.) This group used a variety of sources, some as simple explanation sources and some as fact-proving sources. The one's they used that are basic and random could be found in peer-reviewed sources, however, they have enough information and other peer-reviewed sources that it's a matter of supplementation than anything.
- Check a few links. Do they work? The one's that I checked did work!
Guiding questions:
- Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? Because it's a big topic and a longer article, I felt like my brain was mush and just as if a lot of information was being thrown at me. I had to re-read a few things simply because it's so much information to take in. Overall, it's not hard to read and it makes sense, but it is a lot of information. I feel like it could maybe be condensed a little bit or at least summarized in certain places.
- Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors? Not that I noticed.
- Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? They added subgroups which I think is nice and actually gives me an idea for my own topic addition to my article. I was having trouble thinking of how to separate my information and place it into subtopics, but this article draft gave me a couple of ideas that I think would improve my article!
Guiding questions: If your peer added images or media *I do not see any added 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[edit]If the draft you're reviewing is for a new article, consider the following in addition to the above. *This is an existing article.
- 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[edit]Guiding questions:
- Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete? I think the article was pretty decent to begin with, however, I think the overall quality has improved and there is more information to display now. I like the fact that they brought up the legislation of education reform. That was one of my favorite parts (I'm a legal secretary) so it caught my attention.
- What are the strengths of the content added? I think the strengths of the content added is just sourcing honestly. If you've got good researching skills and good paraphrasing skills, you can make anything work! This topic seems like it will do well once it's complete.
- How can the content added be improved? I do think there can be more information regarding specific reformers and what they've done for education reform, etc. Maybe a section devoted to just that added by one of the group members? It would be supplemental. The only reason I suggest it is because in the leading paragraphs, there is mention of a few reformers but no further detail really.
|
