User:Chunt25/Historical thinking/AGorski28 Peer Review

General info
Chunt25
 * Whose work are you reviewing?


 * Link to draft you're reviewing:User:Chunt25/Historical thinking
 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists):Historical thinking

Evaluate the drafted changes
Hi Chris! Here is my peer review of your article draft:

Lead:

The lead section has not been edited to reflect new content, but rather, has been removed entirely from the sandbox draft. If you are planning on keeping the current lead section from the original article in your final draft, it could be helpful as a way of introducing what historical thinking is. Since the current lead in the original article has some useful information that is also supported by reliable sources, I would suggest including only the first initial paragraph that provides a short definition of historical thinking if you were considering using information from or editing the lead section.

Content:

The content within the draft is relevant to the topic and up to date. The content focuses on one of the 6 historical thinking benchmarks that measure historical literacy in students, and cites the information from a reliable source. It is helpful that the content provided emphasizes the close interrelatedness of the 6 historical benchmarks before focusing on one, "Using Primary Sources as Evidence." I also found it beneficial that the draft included a definition of what it means to use primary sources as evidence. To make the content on primary sources even more easily understood by a general audience, you could include a definition of what a primary source is that is supported if it could be backed up by one of your sources. If there is a specific reason why you chose to focus on the benchmark "Using Primary Sources as Evidence" out of the others, if it happens to be the most necessary or critical for students to learn, I would suggest mentioning that in your draft, while continuing to avoid showing any bias toward this particular benchmark. All of the information about using primary sources as evidence is relevant, and it is important that you address how this approach depends on the types of sources that are available to students or the information they are trying to locate. Since there currently are two different sections about “Using Primary Sources as Evidence,” I would suggest using the section from 3/6/24, or seeing if there is a way that you could combine the two, to deliver the most relevant information on this skill. The section from 3/6/24 has some useful information on types of sources that are primary sources, so I would potentially focus on developing that section for the final draft.

Tone:

The tone of the added content is neutral throughout and objectively outlines information on the topic. None of the claims being made demonstrate any bias, especially when providing information on the 6 historical thinking concepts or the types of primary sources. The content also is effective at not reflecting any attempts to persuade the reader in favor of any particular historical thinking concept. I would continue to write with this neutral tone as you continue to develop your final draft.

Sources and References:

The article includes sources at the end of each section to show where the information is from. If you use any information from the Hartzler-Miller source in the "Using Primary Sources as Evidence" section in your final draft, I would cite it as a link that will also appear at the bottom of the article along with the rest of your sources. Since you mention Seixas's work in your draft, I would even consider citing a source that is written by him in your final draft to further support the information you are writing about related to his framework. In the "Benchmarks for Historical Thinking" section of the original article, there is a source that is written by Seixas (linked as source 8, Benchmarks of Historical Thinking: A Framework for Assessment in Canada" (PDF). Historical Thinking. Retrieved January 31, 2018) which would be useful to also include in your final draft. All of the other sources you provided in your draft are relevant, up to date, and link directly to the articles where the information is from.

Organization:

The content added throughout the draft is clear and easy to read. It also is effective at providing information that could be easily understood by a general audience, rather than being limited to only history teachers. If you choose to include the section on "Using Primary Sources as Evidence" that is above the one written on 3/6/24, editing the punctuation by adding a period after the parenthesis. Other than that, the content contained within the section is well-organized, especially when outlining the differences between the types of primary sources.

Images and Media:

The current draft does not include any images and media, although none are also used in the original article. If you find that some might be helpful as you continue your draft, such as possible examples of some primary sources, you might consider including them in your article.

Overall Impressions:

Overall, the content in the draft improved the quality of this section from the original article. A strength is the way in which the draft defined what it means to use primary sources as evidence before delivering information about the types of primary sources. It also effectively avoids showing any bias throughout the draft. The draft includes 2 credible sources which are linked at the bottom of the draft, and incorporating further trustworthy sources (with one being potentially written by Seixas) would be beneficial as you continue to develop the draft. I also would suggest including a definition of what a primary source is to help expand the audience that would be able to gain from reading this article. This could be done in the section about "Using Primary Sources as Evidence" from 3/6/24. The information throughout the article, as well as the sources used so far, are relevant and provide detailed information on the topic.