User:Derek Hales 241/Distance education/DejaJones241 Peer Review

Neutral content
Wikipedia articles aim for a neutral point of view. That means they don't attempt to persuade the reader into accepting a particular idea or position.


 * Do you think you could guess the perspective of the author by reading the article?
 * The perspective of the author in this article is a college student who was going through the process of remote learning themselves. Here, they explain the process of remote learning, how it works, and the advantages.
 * Are there any words or phrases that don't feel neutral? For example, "the best idea," "most people," or negative associations, such as "While it's obvious that x, some insist that y."
 * There are no phrases or words that make this wikipedia draft be one sided. The authors here make sure that they keep their words neutral and truthful. For example “Researchers have found..”.
 * Does the article make claims on behalf of unnamed groups or people? For example, "some people say..."
 * I think this wikipedia article does and doesn’t make claims upon unnamed groups/people. For example: “The world has seen growing numbers of applications used for online learning that people have had to learn to use”. Here, they should be more specific depending on their source and what it says. (for example if it’s talking about people solely in the USA, they should say “people in America” and not “the world”). Another example could be: “People rely on these platforms, and online learning is becoming a pathway for learners with sparse access to physical courses so they can complete their degrees”. Instead of “people”, they could put “students and educators”. Being more specific to help out the audience more.
 * Does the article focus too much on negative or positive information? Remember, neutral doesn't mean "the best positive light" or "the worst, most critical light." It means a clear reflection of various aspects of a topic.
 * I see the article focuses more on positive information rather than negative information. Adding more perspectives could be more helpful for the wikipedia article as well. Showing what makes it so good or why some people struggle while using the applications.

Reliable sources
Good articles are built on good sources. When you've read the article, turn to the references section.


 * Are most statements in the article connected to a reliable source, such as textbooks and journal articles? Or do they rely on blogs or self-published authors?
 * The sources in the article are connected to a reliable source.
 * Are there a lot of statements attributed to one or two sources? If so, it may lead to an unbalanced article, or one that leans too heavily into a single point of view.
 * There isn’t many statements that stick to only one source. In your drafts, you use many different sources to back up you claims and statements.
 * Are there any unsourced statements in the article, or statements that you can't find stated in the references? Just because there is a source listed, doesn't mean it's presented accurately!
 * There are a lot of unsources statements and sentences in the article that do not have a reference. This makes it a bit harder for the reader to know that you are not using your own thoughts and perspectives rather than a reliable source.

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.)