User:Bmccann5/Mobile phone use in schools/Hnas111 Peer Review

General info
Bmccann5/Mobile phone use in schools
 * Whose work are you reviewing?


 * Link to draft you're reviewing
 * User:Bmccann5/Mobile phone use in schools - Wikipedia
 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)
 * Mobile phone use in schools

Evaluate the drafted changes
Peer review

Lead

Guiding questions:

Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer?

'''The lead focuses on presenting the two viewpoints of mobile phone use in schools, school policies, and regulations. You could revise the lead to include a brief mention of the findings from surveys conducted by tech experts regarding the potential benefits and drawbacks of allowing mobile phones in classrooms. There are some changes made, a citation added, a percentage modified, but there is no new content added.'''

Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?

'''No, the lead lacks an introductory sentence and begins by stating the viewpoint of people who support mobile phone use. I would suggest to stick to the introductory sentence provided in the original article. "The use of mobile phones in schools has become a controversial topic debated by students, parents, teachers and authorities." This introductory sentence introduces the subject in an unbiased way, and if you would begin with a specific viewpoint, it could lean towards a more biased viewpoint.'''

Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?

'''The lead includes the arguments for and against mobile phone use in schools, and school policies. I would suggest adding a sentence that introduces the regulations by country section.'''

Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?

No, there is no information in the lead that is not present in the article.

Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?

The lead is concise, effectively summarizing the main sections of the article.

Content

Guiding questions:

Is the content added relevant to the topic?

'''I am not sure whether the bolded paragraph section is newly added content as it is the same exact paragraph found in the article. It discusses the findings from surveys conducted by tech experts. This content is relevant to the topic of mobile phone use in schools. It addresses the potential benefits and disadvantages for allowing mobile phones in classrooms.'''

Is the content added up-to-date?

Yes, the content appears to be up-to-date.

Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?

The content might benefit from further explanation on the effectiveness of different school policies in managing mobile phone use.

Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics?

'''The article could touch on historically underrepresented populations. Researching on the the impact of mobile phone use on mental health and well-being particularly among adolescents could point to a historically underrepresented population as mental health usually affects minority populations, or individuals from lower socio-economic backgrounds. Also, students with limited access to technology could be more affected by bans of mobile use compared to their peers who have more access to resources.'''

Tone and Balance

Guiding questions:

Is the content added neutral?

There is no new content added.

Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?

There are no claims that seem to be heavily biased toward a particular position.

Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?

'''It does seem that more emphasis is placed on the potential harms of mobile phone use in schools compared to the benefits. While both perspectives are presented, there is a slight imbalance in the number of arguments presented for each side. To address this, you might consider expanding on the benefits of mobile phone use in schools or providing more evidence to support these arguments to achieve a better balance.'''

Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?

'''The content presented arguments and evidence for both sides. While there may be more arguments on the potential harms for mobile phones, both perspectives are presented.'''

Sources and References

Guiding questions:

Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?

There is no new content.

Does the content accurately reflect what the cited sources say? (You'll need to refer to the sources to check this.)

Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?

Are the sources current?

Yes, the majority of the sources are current, ranging from 2012 to 2022.

Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible?

'''Yes, the sources range from studies by researchers from academic institutions, reports from well-known organizations, and articles from professionals. There is an opportunity to include historically marginalized individuals by looking for studies and reports that focus on equity in education.'''

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.)


 * 1) Anderson, J., & Rainie, L. (2012). "Millennials will benefit and suffer due to their hyperconnected lives." - This appears to be a report from the Pew Research Center, which is  considered a reputable source.
 * 2) Bolkan, S., & Griffin, D. J. (2017). "Students’ use of cell phones in class for off-task behaviors: the indirect impact of instructors’ teaching behaviors through boredom and students’ attitudes." - This source is a peer-reviewed article published in the journal Communication Education, which enhances its credibility.
 * 3) Catelly, Y. (2018). "To Allow or not to Allow Mobile Phones in the University Class?! – a Plea for Educated (Relative) Permissiveness." - The source appears to be a paper published by "Carol I" National Defence University. While it may not be a peer-reviewed article, it is still a research-based article.
 * 4) Lepp, A., Barkley, J. E., & Karpinski, A. C. (2015). "The relationship between cell phone use and academic performance in a sample of U.S. college students." - This is a peer-reviewed article published in the journal SAGE Open.
 * 5) Olufadi, Y. (2015). "Gravitating towards mobile phone (GoToMP) during lecture periods by students: Why are they using it? and how can it be measured?" - This source is published in the journal Computers & Education, which is peer-reviewed.
 * 6) Yao, X., Wu, J., Guo, Z., Yang, Y., Zhang, M., Zhao, Y., & Kou, Y. (2022). "Parental Psychological Control and Adolescents’ Problematic Mobile Phone Use: The Serial Mediation of Basic Psychological Need Experiences and Negative Affect." - This is a peer-reviewed article published in the Journal of Child & Family Studies.

Based on this, the majority of the current sources provided on the reference list are peer-reviewed articles.

Check a few links. Do they work?

'''Yes, both links work. I am able to access the full article on one of links, but only access the abstract with the other link.'''

Organization

Guiding questions:

Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?

Yes, the content is concise, clear and easy to read.

Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors?

'''No, the content does not have any major grammatical or any spelling errors. I would put a, after Specifically.'''

Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?

'''Yes the content added is well-organized. On the main article under the heading 'Studies', I would suggest that you organize the studies into two clear groups for and against.'''

Images and Media

Guiding questions: If your peer added images or media

Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic? N/A

Are images well-captioned? N/A

Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations? N/A

Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way? N/A

For New Articles Only N/A

If the draft you're reviewing is for 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? N/A

How exhaustive is the list of sources? Does it accurately represent all available literature on the subject? N/A

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? N/A

Does the article link to other articles so it is more discoverable?

Overall impressions

Guiding questions:

Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete?

Going back and forth between the two articles, there are changes made, but I have not clearly seen any added content.

What are the strengths of the content added?

'''I would suggest to add more studies supporting the use of mobile phones in order to present a more balanced view, as now there are more studies presented displaying the negative effects of mobile usage in schools. I would also suggest to give the article more depth, perhaps if you can present research for mobile phone usage among students with different economic backgrounds, and the implications for banning mobile usage for students who have less resources out of class to access technology. This could involve exploring how students from lower-income households may rely more on mobile devices for accessing educational resources and communication, and how restricting mobile phone usage in schools could set inequalities in access to technology and educational opportunities. I would also organise the arguments for and against together.'''

How can the content added be improved?