User:AGorski28/Response to Intervention/Colleenrushnak Peer Review

General info
AGorski28
 * Whose work are you reviewing?


 * Link to draft you're reviewing:User:AGorski28/Response to Intervention
 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists):Response to Intervention

Evaluate the drafted changes
Lead: WOW!! The changes you made are absolutely incredible. This is everything I think the lead should be- concise, well balanced, and full of information without being overwhelming. You made great meaningful changes.

Content: Overall, the content that you have added is clear to read. I liked the content that you added in the description explaining the different tiers. It was so helpful, especially in comparison to the original article. I like the "study of the nationwide implementation of MTSS reflected that a greater number of states in the U.S. are integrating MTSS as a broader approach to provide services to students with learning disabilities, English Language Learners, and academically advanced" paragraph that you added. Adding statistical analysis and studies are imperative to strengthening the content of the article. Your support for implementation was a great paragraph as well.

Tone and balance: I think your tone is exceptionally balanced. The tone is professional throughout. I like that you include both the challenges and benefits of the RTI in schools. Particularly, discussing challenges was really helpful to making this article well rounded. Having both the "challenges" and "support" as sections is a really good idea for including positives and negatives.

References and Sources: Your usage of sources is incredible. Your article is chock-full of sources, and it illustrates the strength of your article. You avoid including original research and are abiding by all of the Wikipedia guidelines.

Organization: Your organization changes are incredible. I think you really organized this article well for someone who may not be familiar with RTI to understand. I would just double check the organization in references section, as I think that should be its own section and not 2.4.