User:Jrfo232/Dialect Discrimination/Hazel Burris Peer Review

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing?

Jrfo232/ Dialect Discrimination


 * Link to draft you're reviewing https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Jrfo232/Dialect_Discrimination?veaction=edit&preload=Template%3ADashboard.wikiedu.org_draft_template
 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)
 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)

Evaluate the drafted changes
Lead: The lead has not yet been created. I assume that eventually, this group will add an introductory blurb of this topic that provides a basis of what the rest of the article will cover.

Content: The information given in the article body so far is relevant to the article subject and is up to date. This topic deals heavily with underrepresented groups of people and struggles they face. So far, this draft does introduce how dialect discrimination is an issue, however, it does not give much detail past that. It shares of the different bases that one may be discriminated on and then leads into dialect discrimination. I believe there is room for growth in this area to provide clear examples of instances and commonly discriminated dialect. All of the information in this section is important, but I think it can be grown upon and organized in a way that flows more efficiently. For instance, the lead could introduce discrimination broadly and how dialect discrimination is also apart of that. The lead could give a broad definition of both of these. Then, the body of the article could lengthen the definition of dialect discrimination with specific references to texts that support the definition. Following this could be a list of different examples of dialect discrimination. Then, potentially, you could incorporate summaries of different studies done about this if you find any.

Tone and Balance: From my perspective, the content of this draft is very neutral so far. The information is straight forward and black and white for the most part. And, in areas where there could be an opportunity for reader confusion, there is clarity provided. For example, in the sentence, "Although it is not clear why humans practice discrimination, many researchers believe that it may stem from fear and misunderstanding of something, like a dialect, that others may not resonate with,", the grey area of discrimination motives could leave readers confused or questioning. However, the sentence ends with a suggestion from research studies to help supplement any confusion. Organizationally, I would maybe move this to its own section of the article where you could discuss motives and studies done. Besides that, nothing strikes me as biased information and it does a good job and discussing the underrepresented topics and groups.

Sources and References: Looking at the references section, I am seeing a wide range of sources. A lot of these references come from an academic database which helps build the credibility of this article. Having scholarly sources helps keep the information trustworthy and balanced. Otherwise, there are some other links to websites and articles. While these might not be the most unbiased pieces to pull from, they do help build a dynamic look at this topic as long as they are used correctly. In the draft, there are no citations made, so I think a next step could be to cite these sources next to the info in the article that they came from.

Organization: I have left comments about some organizational advice in the paragraphs above. Besides that, there are not many grammatical or spelling errors. One thing that I noticed is the quote used. Typically, quotes shouldn't stand alone. Maybe you could add an attribution to who said it before the quote starts such as, "[insert source] says, "[quote]".

Images or Media: N/A

New Articles: This article does not reach all of those requirements. However it does reach some. This includes having 2-3 reliable sources and having a huge list of other articles.

Overall Impression: I think that this is going to turn out to be a very good article. I would focus on organization and adding more information to your page. It is off to a good start with defining this topic, but could improve at including examples and specific studies.