User:Francessus/Equity and Inclusion in Education/BucketBridge234 Peer Review

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing?

Francessus


 * Link to draft you're reviewing
 * User:Francessus/Equity and Inclusion in Education


 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)

Evaluate the drafted changes
Lead:

The article introduces the topic in a very clear and concise way. The reader is able to establish the topic and relevance of the article immediately. All of the information in the lead is present in the article.

Content:

The article has a clear message and communicates the role of Equity and Inclusion in education. Information and context for the ‘Target 4’ and its relevance to the overall article. It’s a missed opportunity as perhaps breaking down what the ‘Target 4’ are within the context of your article would help the reader understand its importance and significance to Equity and Inclusion in education. I wasn’t sure what you were suggesting actually be implemented in the school setting that would increase equity and inclusion, so some specific examples would have helped. Within the content there are a lot of links to terms that perhaps don’t need a definition such as the term ‘policy’. Policy in its regular form is used in a lot of other Wikipedia articles and is only linked when referring to a specific policy, such as your ‘Target 4’.

Tone and Balance:

The wording is very neutral and provides unbiased information. There is a positive balance between the sources and their relevance. It would be important to include how Equity and Inclusion have faltered in the past or some of the main roadblocks to its implementations.

Sources and Referencing:

There are a variety of links used to help support the article that could be turned into Wikipedia pages themselves, or linked into this article to further expand on the topic. There are a lot of definition links including one to a youtube video for ‘equality’. I don’t think that this link is needed. Context for the ‘Target 4’ and it’s relevance based on the UN not having any actual power in education is needed, perhaps change the word ‘determined’ to ‘recommended’.

Organization:

The article is well organized and flows properly. There is some repetitive vocabulary that could be changed to diversify the linguistic sentence structure. Check for grammar errors and sentence structuring as the use of ‘and’ more than once in a sentence leads to run-on sentences.

Overall Impressions:

The addition to the article has a lot of potential for such a complex topic. I see this as the introductory lead for a much larger article that could be used to examine Equity and Inclusion education globally, philosophically and practically. On its own the article is not sufficient to stand as an information ‘go to’ on Equity in Education, but is a fantastic launching point into a very relevant and essential issue in education.