User:Kevin Cartwright/Braille literacy/Mcguirp Peer Review

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing?

Kevin Cartwright


 * Link to draft you're reviewing
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Kevin%20Cartwright/Braille_literacy?veaction=edit&preload=Template%3ADashboard.wikiedu.org_draft_template


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

Lead
Guiding questions:


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer?

Yes, there are several new categories now. The awkward for paragraph talking about 'A sighted child' has been removed.


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

Yes, the introductory paragraph is well written and it acts as a good introduction to the rest of the article.


 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?

No, it doesn't include a summary of the other parts of the article. This needs to be added so the entire piece makes more sense.


 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?

The Lead is more like an introduction to the benefits of Braille. While this is a very good opening, none of the statements are attributed to other sources. It does make this look like the paragraphy is the opinion of the writer.


 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?

Concise, well done for an intro.

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic?

Yes, there are new sections including: Braille Literacy for the Blind, What is Braille?, Braille and New Emerging Technologies, Braille and Early Literacy (formatting of the headings is not consistent) and Future Implications for Braille Literacy


 * Is the content added up-to-date?

It seems to be up to date, but it is hard to tell as the citations are missing. One of the sentences in the original article needs to be updated. What is recently for this article?

''Currently, among the estimated 85,000 blind adults in the United States[ citation needed], 90 percent of those who are braille literate are employed. Among adults who do not know braille, only 1 in 3 is employed. Statistically, history has proven that braille reading proficiency provides an essential skill set that allows visually impaired children not only to compete with their sighted peers in a school environment, but also later in life as they enter the workforce.''


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

This paragraph should be updated to include information on Canada - the NLS is an American organization:

NLS Braille Certification Program[edit]

There should be a link to ReadBooks!

There should be a lnk to Louis Braille.

Very heavy emphasis on American programs, what about programs in Canada and other countries? This comment is also made on the banner for the original article.

Also ore information is needed here - what are some examples of new technology that people are using? This is a major point in the revision, but the technologies are never mentioned.

Considering the immense changes that Braille has undergone over the past decade, blind people are gravitating more and more towards other digital tools to augment their reading and communicating preferences.


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

No, it does not deal with women, minorities, or historically underrepresented populations

Tone and Balance

 * Is the content added neutral?

Generally yes. However this sentence seems to present an opinion and should be edited:

''Furthermore, sighted people are considered literate because they learned to read and write print, not because they learned to use technology. Hence, regardless of the many options in technology, shouldn’t blind people learn how to read and write hardcopy Braille to truly be considered as literate?''


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

This might fit into this category unless it can be cited:

More importantly, many proponents of Braille strongly feel that frequency of reading hard copy Braille needs to be encouraged, while exploring ways to balance the use of digital technology to enhance the use of Braille and to encourage more blind people to read the code.


 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?

Yes, as mentioned earlier, there is a heavy reliance on American programming and no mention of anything outside of North America.


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

This paragraph should be examined. This is the only place where there seems to be a bias towards one position:

Future Implications for Braille Literacy

Sources and References
Guiding questions:


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

All the citations from the original article have been removed and there are no citations for the new material. This is something that needs to be addressed in the revision. The original needs to have more citation as well as the banner comment reads:

This article is written like a personal reflection, or argumentative essay that states a Wikipedia editor's personal feelings or presents an original argument about a topic.


 * Does the content accurately reflect what the cited sources say? (You'll need to refer to the sources to check this.)
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?


 * 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.)

There must be better sources. Many of the 23 sources included from the original article are from newspaper articles - The Boston Globe and LA Times or from websites like Freedom Scientific. Several of the links are broken. Very few sources are peer reviewed - I found one.


 * Check a few links. Do they work?

The links in the article work, but these are all links that were previously created.


 * Are the sources current?

Very hard therefore to comment on the sources used in the revision. The sources cited in the original article are all at least 12 years old - nothing more current than 2009.

Organization
Guiding questions:


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

yes, it is well written in most cases. This sentence needs rewriting (comprehension of what?):

Teaching core subjects, such as, science, mathematics, comprehension, language and other vital academic skills  will produce more positive educational results.


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

a few. Plus should Braille be capitalized? It is in the revision, but not in the original. Second paragraph is indented - only this paragraph.


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

The revised paragraph is well organized, but the original needs to be redone and organized in a fashion that includes more than American programs.

Images and Media
Guiding questions: If your peer added images or media


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic?
 * Are images well-captioned?
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations?
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way?

no images in article or revision

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 has been improved and brought up to date. But there is still too much of an American focus and there are no current references to back up the new material. The old references should be checked to see if they are credible and where they are not the cited material should be deleted.


 * What are the strengths of the content added?

The now material is good. It is well-written and current. It adds credibility to the entire article.


 * How can the content added be improved?

The original article needs to be rewritten.

The overall organization of the piece needs to be stated in the introductory paragraph.

The citations needs to be added for the new material.

The paragraph headings need to be consistent.

There needs to be more Canadian and international examples of programs.

The spacing between words needs to be checked. comments made by Mcguirp (talk) 19:53, 22 November 2021 (UTC)