User:Joseph.palagano/Language brokering/Rmeaso Peer Review

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing?

Joseph.palagano


 * Link to draft you're reviewing
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Joseph.palagano/Language_brokering?preload=Template%3ADashboard.wikiedu.org_draft_template#Cognitive_Effects


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

Lead
Guiding questions:


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer? Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections? Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?

Currently the lead mostly focus on information about what language brokering is instead of providing a brief summary of the whole topic. I think a lot of what is in this section could be moved to the background paragraph and the lead could be shortened to one or two sentences about each section.


 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?

Yes, the intro sentence is a very clear description of the topic, it could be improved by using slightly more casual language. "Enacted" and "whereby" standout to me as words that could be replaced with more common synonyms.


 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?

I think the lead is currently overly detailed, it focuses more on background about language brokering instead of summarizing what is in the article.

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic?

Sort of the opposite to this question - I think you did a good job getting rid of a lot of biased and non-relevant content while cleaning up the content that was already there. For example, the section on "Existing problems and future developments" had a lot of irrelevant and biased information. See the tone and balance section for more on how this section could be further improved.


 * Is the content added up-to-date?

Yes - it looks like most of the sources are from the last decade or so and the ones that aren't seem to be for content that is fairly well established like the role of age in learning a second language.


 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?

Presumably there is not a lot of neuroscience on the effects of language brokering yet so fine that it isn't a super robust section, but I would recommend linking to Christina's article - Cognitive effects of bilingualism - instead of the bilingualism article.


 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics?

Yes, since language brokering typically happens in immigrant (or deaf) families, it is largely about underrepresented populations and it is clearly an under researched topic

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral?

My one concern with the added information is the "Existing problems and future developments" section. Especially with the part about CODA, you don't have any sources about this being a specific concern. Plus it focuses fully on deaf populations, who presumably are a minority of the language brokering community. Having a source about problems/areas for development from hearing language brokers would make this section stronger.


 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?

The emotional effect section seems to be well balanced, but the cognitive section only has positives, are there no negative cognitive effects seen from language brokering in the research so far?


 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?

In the final section I think hearing brokers are underrepresented.


 * Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?

No, the new content is far more neutral than the former content.

Sources and References
Guiding questions:


 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?

Most of the information is well cited. The claim about social stigmas research in the final section does not have a source, but that was the only glaring source I noticed missing.


 * Does the content accurately reflect what the cited sources say? (You'll need to refer to the sources to check this.)

"One reason as to why adults might reflect on sign language brokering more positively, is that they have a better understanding of the potential positive benefits they can get from brokering such as better interpersonal skills, or better language usage" <- this line does not appear to be cited to a sign language specific source (35).

Not necessarily source related, but I think it would be helpful to add an example of what you mean by "semantic convergence across-language." (40)


 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible?

It seems like a majority of the sources that mention a specific group or language in their title focus on Mexican/Spanish-speaking immigrants to the US. I saw one source about Chinese speakers in England, but that was it. It would be nice to see a bit more variation in information about language brokers with different experiences, though I am not sure if it is available.


 * Are the sources current?

Yes, there are a good number of sources that are from the last decade, including several from the last few years.


 * Are there better sources available, such as peer-reviewed articles in place of news coverage or random websites? (You may need to do some digging to answer this.)

Most of the sources included are strong including peer-reviewed articles and documentaries from PBS.


 * Check a few links. Do they work?

Yes.

Organization
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?

Yes, I think you did a great job reorganizing this article. Only change I would suggest I mentioned earlier regarding the lead vs background information.


 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors?

There are several grammar and spelling errors throughout. Significantly fewer than there were in the original article though.


 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?

I think you have done a good job of reorganizing what was there. For example, moving the age/ability to learn a second language to the background section makes a lot of sense. I think it would be even better if some of the info in the lead section was moved down into the background section, before you dive into the research on the topic. Maybe break the background into sub-sections along the lines of "what is it", "why does it happen", "what is the research".

Overall impressions
Guiding questions:


 * Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete?

Yes, the article is much more well sourced and much easier to read.


 * What are the strengths of the content added?

The new draft is much less biased and has more sources to support the claims that are stated.


 * How can the content added be improved?

Two biggest concerns are reorganizing the lead/background sections and addressing potential bias/lack of multiple perspectives in the final section.