User:Buzzancam1/Literacy Crisis/Lopezj17 Peer Review

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing?

Buzzancam1


 * Link to draft you're reviewing
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Buzzancam1/Literacy_Crisis?veaction=edit&preload=Template%3ADashboard.wikiedu.org_draft_template


 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)
 * N/A

Evaluate the drafted changes
Lead- Does a good job describing literacy, but could hint at some of the things that are going to be talked about later on in the article. Could focus more clearly on the topics that are going to be talked about, may be too over detail on the description of literacy.

Content- Given how broad the topic is, you did a good job covering as many bases you could, giving each section equal attention. The content is delivered neutrally although there could be more view points added, if there are any available, on certain topics. The sources and the content are up to date.

Tone and Balance- Attention to each section is pretty equal, although the covid section is a little bigger than the rest, it almost seems understandable because it is so recent, but maybe in a couple of years it could be put more concisely. In some sections like "How to Fix the Crisis" it could make the section stronger by adding other perspectives, if any, on how to solve the literary crisis.

Sources and References- The ones that I checked worked. There is a wide range of sources to account for the wide range of topics covered. Many of the sources are government sources.

Organization- No noticeable spelling or grammar errors. The article is broken up into reasonable sections. The writing is concise, and mostly easy to read.

Images and media- Images well captioned and add to the article. They aren't just there to be there, they have a purpose. I think it would help if some of the pictures with diagrams were bigger so that the reader could read it with ease.

New Article- This article is supported by many reliable sources. It seems for the most part that the list of sources represents a wide variety of the topics of the literary crisis. The article follows the patterns of other articles.

Overall Impressions- The content added, really improves the article. Strengths: Sections are equal, and there is wide range of information.

Is this just supposed to focus on the literary crisis in America?