User:Elli207/Code-Switching/Klb123456 Peer Review

General info
Elli207
 * Whose work are you reviewing?


 * Link to draft you're reviewing:User:Elli207/Code-Switching
 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists):Code-switching

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.)

Content

 * The content added is relevant. The content added is from 2018, so relatively recently. Yes, it does address topics to underrepresented populations and topics.

Tone and Balance

 * The content added is neutral. No claims seem to be biased, purely informational.

Sources and References

 * The source is from 2018, so relatively current. The new content is backed up by the source and the source also has many cited sources. The addition may be too close to the exact words from source - may need to be reworded. The source is a thorough complete source on this topic. The source has 4 authors. Only one source is cited within the addition. I had some trouble finding the source online, but I did find it.

Organization

 * The content has some errors and could be cleared. I think the first sentence should be The Grammar instead of The Grammatical is - but unsure if that is what you meant. Comma after for example. Invariant "Be" or Invariant Be - not sure which is better (you went back and forth between the two). Some sentences are a little long and wordy - too many commas, run on.
 * It is organized.
 * I would go back and make sure your wording is not too close to source because I noticed "First day I walk in the door, there she was" is word for word in your addition and the source. So I would just be careful with that and other wordings as well.

Overall Impressions

 * The content added has improved the article - has not talked about invariant be. The strengths are that this is good quality importation and the improvements are to make sure you are not copying the source too closely.