User:HK khawaja/Achievement gaps in the United States/Mgmari19 Peer Review

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing?

khawaja


 * Link to draft you're reviewing
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:HK%20khawaja/Achievement_gaps_in_the_United_States?veaction=edit&preload=Template%3ADashboard.wikiedu.org_draft_template
 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)
 * Achievement gaps in the United States

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.)

Hi! Great job, here are some of my suggestions:

The introductory sentence is a little hard to read and doesn't make as much sense as it could. Its broad idea comes across, but it might be better to mention less and split the idea into two sentences. "It should be noted" is somewhat leading and may indicate bias instead of just straightforward facts. There is not enough context between the first and second sentences to know what it is that is being talked about. Overall, the first paragraph in "Attempts to reduce literacy achievement gap" is lacking a specific topic and flow. It mentions various things without expanding, and the language sounds more argumentative than factual.

Paragraph 2: The idea is much clearer here! First sentence may need to be cleaned up and linked to the previous paragraph more. Maybe mention exactly what points were made in the draft of the bill, that can then relate to the section's theme.

Small note: I don't think you need to capitalize "Nonprofit" every time

Reading Partners Section:

The part where it says "produce literate global citizens" is a bit awkward and leading, maybe you can mention specifics of what styles of teaching Reading Partners puts to use and from what background of research it's based on.

Paragraph 2 and 3 are great and super straightforward!

To conclude, I'm not sure where you plan on putting these sections into the article. The first section maybe can serve as an introduction to solutions to achievement gaps, and then transition into the description of Reading Partners. If you were to add the RP section to the article, you should directly relate it to achievement gaps and how it is actively working against this and serves as a solution. I think you can do this by summarizing its background less or not at all, and instead relay the actions it participates in to directly close the gap.