User:Ecbon/Deaf Education/KateReilly1 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)
 * Ecbon
 * Link to draft you're reviewing:
 * Deaf education
 * User:Ecbon/Deaf Education

Lead
Guiding questions:


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer? -unsure
 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic? -yes
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections? -yes
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? -no
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? -concise

Lead evaluation
I think the lead was a strong way to open the article. it does introduce the topic and rest of the article well. The one thing i am unclear on is if the lead has been updated to reflect the new information added. As a suggestion for the article, maybe add one or two more sentences that incorporate the new things add and all topics.

Content
Guiding questions:


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

Content evaluation
i think the content that was added was very beneficial to the article. It add more substance and information about the pros and cons of different educational settings. If i were to have any suggestions it would be adding maybe a little more research but I don't think it is necessary.

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral? -yes
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? -no
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? -no
 * Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another? -no

Tone and balance evaluation
the content added by ecbon was very neutral. It had no persuasion to it.

Sources and References
Guiding questions:


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

Sources and references evaluation
The first source could be considered outdated since it is dated from 1989. Also, the link for the last source did not work.

Organization
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? -yes
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors? -no
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? -yes

Organization evaluation
i did not see any organization issues with the content added.

Images and Media
Guiding questions: If your peer added images or media- n/a


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

Images and media evaluation
my peer did not add any images or media.

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
section not applicable, 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? -yes
 * What are the strengths of the content added? - see below
 * How can the content added be improved? -see below

Overall evaluation
Overall, I think the content added was very beneficial to the article. The strength of the content added was the amount of pros that where included. For content add that i think will make this article even stronger would be adding more cons or providing a few more counter-arguments. However, even without adding this, I think the content is still very strong and keeps the article neutral and informative. Overall, good job!!