User:Jacob.brown00/1966 Dartmouth Literacy Conference/Buzzancam1 Peer Review

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing?

Jacob.brown00


 * Link to draft you're reviewing
 * User:Jacob.brown00/1966 Dartmouth Literacy Conference


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

Evaluate the drafted changes
Lead


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer?
 * A lead has not been created. The lead should be a brief overall view of what your article is about. You could add a brief statement on what a Literary Conference is. In addition, you could also add a brief statement on Dartmouth University (history, importance, etc.).

Content


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic?
 * So far, the content under your first header is relevant to the topic.
 * Is the content added up-to-date?
 * The content, so far, is up-to-date.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
 * I do not believe there is content that does not belong.

Tone and Balance


 * Is the content added neutral?
 * For the most part the content added is neutral. The only issue I found was when you state "The seminar was so impactful that it still had formed the foundation for the teaching and writing of English in schools today." If this was taken from a source, then I would cite it and it should be fine. However, if this is your own opinion on the seminar then I think it needs to be worded more neutral or have evidence to back it up.

Sources and References


 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
 * See previous question for content not backed up by a source.
 * Are the sources current?
 * The sources a current.
 * Are there better sources available, such as peer-reviewed articles in place of news coverage or random websites?
 * I would suggest looking at UD Libraries academic journal search or google scholar to see if you can find some peer reviewed articles on the conference.

Organization


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
 * The content is concise, however, I think that more information can be added on Jim Squire. Why was he important? How did he start the conference? Was he a professor at Dartmouth?


 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?
 * The content does have sections, however, the only section that has information as of now is 1966 Dartmouth Literary Conference. However, since the title of your article is 1966 Dartmouth Literacy Conference, I do not think you need to have a heading with the same title. Also, the information you have under that first heading could be moved to a history of the conference. For the heading titled "Leading up to the Conference," is this the history behind the conference? Or important events leading up to conference?

Overall impressions


 * Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete?/How can the content added be improved?
 * I think by adding content under your next three headings will complete your article, as well as improve the overall quality of the article.
 * What are the strengths of the content added?
 * The strengths of the content added is that you have a great start of research for your topic.

Additional Questions

~Megan
 * I would suggest adding images of the conference or of the important people of the conference.