User:Christiana Dalton/Critical period hypothesis/Steven Jenkinss Peer Review

General info
Christiana Dalton
 * Whose work are you reviewing?


 * Link to draft you're reviewing
 * User:Christiana Dalton/Critical period hypothesis:
 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)
 * Critical period hypothesis

Evaluate the drafted changes
(Compose a detailed peer review here, considering each of the key aspects listed above if it is relevant. Consider the guiding questions, and check out the examples of what feedback looks like.)

The content of the edits made for the original article improve the article by both grounding the research in more tangible terms as well as fleshing out the ideas of the original paragraph. The added content is neutral and explains the viewpoints of a researcher using their study as explanations for the topic. The added content also seems to be more relevant than the original paragraph which delves more into Piagets theories which had already been explained in a previous paragraph of the original article.

The paragraph is well written, providing a clear takeaway for the reader. A minor correction for clarity of Krashen’s research could be done by changing the word “like” in the sentence “This research indicates that adults are able to pick up grammar rules, like word order and word parts, more quickly than children can”, to “including”. This minor fix may make the sentence flow slightly better but the original sentence is clear in its meaning. I think it would also be beneficial to use “Krashen’s research” or “Krashen’s findings” when possible instead of “This research” as it leads with the subject of the paragraph and personalizes Krashen’s findings to him.

As for more content that could be added, since Krashen's findings are 50 years old today, finding researchers that have been inspired by Krashen's or reference Krashen’s finding could finish off the section with a more clear idea of why Krashen’s findings matter. It could also give more context as to where the direction of research is moving today either with Kashen’s findings or away from them.

Overall the paragraph is well written and provides valuable information to the article while getting rid of the previous paragraphs repetitive information.