User:Kevin Cartwright/Braille literacy/KarenM.Cook Peer Review

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing?

Kevin Cartwright


 * Link to draft you're reviewing
 * Editing User:Kevin Cartwright/Braille literacy - Wikipedia
 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)
 * Braille literacy - Wikipedia

Evaluate the drafted changes
Hi Kevin, very interesting article - it is always enrichening to be able to learn new things about topics of interest while we are editing and conducting peer reviews!

In comparing your edits against the original article, I can see where you have put thought into where links can be made to outside sources, where information can be improved and updated, and more contemporary insights can be included. Your insertions will certainly help to improve the original article and therefore benefit readers and therefore the overall experience of knowledge-seeking on the internet. Here are some recommendations:

Neutrality and Objectivity: try to be cautious of terms like "no doubt" and idiomatic or metaphoric expressions like "fresh spring of life" (intro section). Also, you posed a personalized question in your Future Implications section. These dip into the realm of subjectivity. They might be better reserved for article-writing where we are framing a certain lens and allowed more freedom in our writing style, but are not particularly suited for Wikipedia.

Paraphrasing: your definition of Braille in the What Is Braille? section might be too closely aligned to the original source so you might want to consider a re-write. In particular, your points about "not a language, rather it is a code..." are laid out very similarly in wording and syntax to the AFB definition. I would also caution that the statement "Braille is not a language" might be contentious within some circles and you might consider leaving it out of your Wiki.

Links: you have taken the time to decide where you can provide additional links to outside sources within your Wiki. I like that you kept the phrasing so that the article makes sense and provides enough information on its own, but links are provided for readers who might want to explore a topic, organization, or issue in more detail. Other links I might suggest include: assistive technology, Brailon, the CFDA report reference, and all of the specific programs you discuss (Dots for Tots, ReadBooks! etc.)

Proofing: there are inconsistencies in the capitalization of Braille. I am not sure which is correct, but it might help to ensure the capitalization is consistent throughout the article. There is a line/sectioning break in the Braille and Early Literacy section which should be edited. There is also an additional space between "academic skills__will produce" in that section. In the section covering ReadBooks! you might reconsider the use of semicolons in your list. Lastly, in the Instant Access to Braille section, the sentence beginning "This program provides..." should be revised.

References: The sections that you wrote would benefit from in-text citations linking to the sources in your reference list. This is a convention of Wikipedia that users will anticipate seeing in your article and it allows us to click through your references if we are looking for additional information or to check for accuracy. It would also help keep the formatting more cohesive when you go to publicize your changes and insert your new sections into the original article. I might suggest reviewing the Wiki Edu training on how to create a reference list. I found it to be of great help.

Great job, and good luck with final product!