User:Genipet/Differentiated instruction/FawnTail Peer Review

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing?

Genipet


 * Link to draft you're reviewing
 * User:Genipet/Differentiated instruction


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

Evaluate the drafted changes
Wikipedia Page - Peer Evaluation

1.How much scholarly evidence did the group use on the page?


 * Did they include at least three in-text citations? Three in-text citations were used.


 * What was the quality of the references? The references were a very relevant and strong sources.
 * Were summaries from the reference appropriate? (no plagiarism!) The summary was well-written, precise, and an informative addition to the overall article.

2.How effectively did the group incorporate visuals into the page?


 * Did they include at least two images on the page and what was the quality of the images? There are no images in the sandbox yet. I would be interested to see what visuals you choose when you add them. Perhaps you might consider adding a picture of a graphic organizer and the videos you use with your own students to visually demonstrate how to differentiate instruction.

3.How well written was the page?

Thanks for the feedbackGenipet (talk) 02:57, 3 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Grammar, punctuation, and sentence structure. There are a few grammar errors that would be helpful to correct before moving the article to the live Wikipedia page. In the third sentence of the article body, I was wondering if you perhaps meant the process of learning, rather than proceeds of learning?
 * Was the page written in a way that made it accessible for the public? (No jargon) The paragraph addition was very accessible to those who are not familiar with differentiated learning and scaffolding.