User:Jerseryq/Education in the United States/Kristiedelvalle Peer Review

Peer review
This is where you will complete your peer review exercise. Please use the following template to fill out your review.

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing? Jerseryq
 * Link to draft you're reviewing: User:Jerseryq/sandbox

Content

 * Content is relevant to the topic of Education in the United States and all details are up-to-date, using sources that are recent and applicable to the current education system, despite discussing topics like historical perspectives on literacy. The new content created seems it will be a good addition to the information in the original article.

Tone and Balance

 * Content added is neutral and nothing seems biased towards any particular position. All details are factual and backed by a source therefore none appear to be swaying the readers towards any viewpoint.

Sources and References

 * All sources are relevant and thorough and all their links work in this section; however, I don't think the last citation "(Cassidy, Ortlieb, and Grote-Garcia 96)" is needed, and maybe it could be replaced with the link of that source in the same way the previous sentences were cited. Other than that the sources were used well.

Organization

 * The content is well written and clear as well as easy to read. No grammatical or spelling errors were found. It wasn't mentioned where this paragraph will be inserted into the original wiki article, but since its is titled Development of Literacy, it might be best placed somewhere in the beginning in the article. It's neat how a link to the Literacy in the United States article is being plugged in that the end, I think this addition is good because it flows perfectly; however, maybe putting the link in parenthesis or adding some transition before the link will help this sentence flow better (the link seems a little out of place to me).

Overall impressions

 * Great addition to the article! These few interesting details improved the overall quality of the article because it added representation of immigrant children and resources for them in the U.S., which is something the original article lacked. Thanks for your research!