User:Ecbon/Deaf Education/ITBillet Peer Review

Peer review
This is where you will complete your peer review exercise. Please use the following template to fill out your review.

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing? (provide username)
 * I am reviewing Ecbon's work.
 * Link to draft you're reviewing:
 * Deaf education (Pros and cons of different education settings section)

Lead
Guiding questions:


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer?
 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?

Lead evaluation
The Lead has not been updated to reflect new content added but I do not think this is necessary due to the fact that the new content added branched off of another topic which was mentioned in the lead. The Lead does include a brief description of the article's major sections. It does a good job at summarizing what the article entails without going into unnecessary detail. No random information is displayed in the Lead, and it is concise in the right way to have each topic discussed further in the article.

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic?
 * Is the content added up-to-date?
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics?

Content evaluation
The content added to the article by Ecbon is very relevant to the topic Deaf education, and it is up-to-date. The content added regarding the pros and cons of different education settings is very relevant to the article and is placed in such a way that is linear when reading the article in its entirety. The content added represents the benefits and consequences to either having mainstreamed Deaf education or individualized Deaf education. It represents both methods and speaks of them in a transparent way.

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral?
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
 * Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?

Tone and balance evaluation
The content added is neutral and without bias. No claim is biased, as both pros and cons of both types of education are highlighted. Similarly, no views are overrepresented or underrepresented. No persuasion to lean towards one education type is seen.

Sources and References
Guiding questions:


 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
 * Are the sources current?
 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible?
 * Check a few links. Do they work?

Sources and references evaluation
The new content is backed up by 4 relevant and credible resources. The sources reflect literature regarding Deaf education and methodologies, and they are current. The resources are written by a diverse range of authors. They pull from different perspectives of Deaf individuals and families on mainstreamed and individualized education for Deaf individuals. All links work properly.

Organization
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors?
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?

Organization evaluation
The new content is written well and is concise, to the point, and easy to read. There is a "However" in one sentence that I don't think belongs, but I am not sure. The content is well organized and reflects the topic well.

Images and Media
Guiding questions: If your peer added images or media


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic?
 * Are images well-captioned?
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations?
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way?

Images and media evaluation
No media was added to the article.

For New Articles Only
If the draft you're reviewing is 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?
 * How exhaustive is the list of sources? Does it accurately represent all available literature on the subject?
 * 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?
 * Does the article link to other articles so it is more discoverable?

New Article Evaluation
This is not a new article.

Overall impressions
Guiding questions:


 * Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete?
 * What are the strengths of the content added?
 * How can the content added be improved?

Overall evaluation
The student added a section to the article that is important for readers. It is essential to understand the experiences and feelings that Deaf individuals and families have towards the different types of education. Understanding the pros and the cons of both can help people to realize the accommodations they may need in each setting to gain the ability to be successful just as anyone else would. Though it is an addition that concludes portions of the article, its presence is essential. Some more descriptions of the "why" for each pro and con may be beneficial to the section.