User:Adeledaniels5/Early childhood intervention/Natwill78 Peer Review

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing?

AdeleDaniels5.


 * Link to draft you're reviewing
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Adeledaniels5/Early_childhood_intervention?veaction=edit&preload=Template%3ADashboard.wikiedu.org_draft_template

Evaluate the drafted changes
 Overall impressions: 

I find that the article is well-written. I think that it is clear and comprehensive and manages to encapsulate a large amount of information in relatively few paragraphs. It seems as though a high number of sources have been consulted and that thorough research has been conducted.

One thing that I immediately noted, however, is the changing referencing style. I know that these articles are in the rough stage and you probably do not intend on keeping things the same reference-wise, however, I would suggest using the superscript numbers that you tend to see in Wikipedia articles rather than including sources in brackets. I do feel though, that you may have simply included them like that so as not to forget the source you got the information from. Moreover, on the subject of sources, I would make sure that with every fact, date, and assertion that you make, that it has a basis in an academic source. Again, though, at this rough stage I am sure you will be including them (I still need to add all of mine!)

 Content: 

The content is undoubtedly appropriate for the topic and includes information from recent developments. Nothing included struck me as not belonging, the direction you are taking the article in seems to be highly motivated. I believe that this article is effectively combatting Wikipedia's equity gap as there is a lot of improvement to be done on articles that discuss the topic of disabilities.

 Tone and balance: 

So far, I think the article very successfully moves from point to point without seeming skewed in one direction or another. The angles consulted and method of presenting them seems carefully considered. Good job on keeping things neutral and balanced. I would, perhaps, change a few moments in which the connectors that you used, for example, felt a bit more casual although this is a very minor note.

 Sources and References: 

The sources seem to be appropriate and reliable; they are gleaned from places that are logical for the topic at hand. As I mentioned previously, it will be important to make the sources clickable so that people can further look into the points made in this article. This is a standard practice in Wikipedia that I think instills more trust among its users. Not everything that should be referenced is but this is completely understandable at this stage in the process. The links included thus far work and so do the superscript reference numbers so that is all good.

 Organization: 

Should this draft be in the order that you intend on having the article, I would perhaps suggest providing readers with more of an understanding of the direction that the writing is going. As someone who is not very knowledgable on this topic, some clearer connections being explicitly stated may help me to better digest and appreciate the progression of the article. As for writing style, grammar, and spelling, I do not see any glaring issues. Things are clear, concise, and complicated concepts are made easier to understand through a solid use of register.

 Conclusion: 

Overall, I think you are certainly on the right track. Some things to consider are:

- Citation style and adhering to what people are used to seeing on Wikipedia.

- Creating a clear pathway to lead readers down (I looked at the original and noticed it was in this order, is there any way you could do some rearranging or breaking up of sections into new sections to be more reader-friendly?)

- Making sure that even tiny aspects of the writing, like connectors, still feel academic and do not have the slight hint of being casual.

I am impressed with what you have done so far and am excited to read your finished article. You are definitely making a difference with your contributions.