User:Marie Emerson/Educational inequality in the United States/Skeedoh Peer Review

General info
Marie Emerson
 * Whose work are you reviewing?


 * Link to draft you're reviewing:User:Marie Emerson/Educational inequality in the United States - Wikipedia
 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists):Educational inequality in the United States - Wikipedia

Evaluate the drafted changes
Lead:


 * Lead does not seem to be apparent in the sandbox draft, as there is more of a clear focus on a specific subsection of race inequality in education.

Content:


 * The content added for the planned revisions are clearly related to the topic, as it shows great evidence of what the subject is related to.
 * There is mostly up to date content, with some sources seeming dated. Some sources seem to be from the early 2000s and some are from the late 1900s.
 * Content is well-balanced, however there seems to be an overload of information in certain bullets. Such as the bullet containing the cultural disconnect between students and teachers. The detail within this bullet presents a bias.
 * The draft does go into detail about an equity gap that relates to a historically underrepresented population (African Americans).

Tone and Balance:


 * As previously mentioned, the bullet about white teachers seems to imply bias, when you state, "It is important that this discrepancy in family life for African American children and white children is realized and understood so that teachers can support students the way they need to."
 * While the opinion is fair, there should be a neutrality when approaching a Wikipedia revision. For example, in several bullets it seems as though you would like to see teachers appealing more to African American students, as opposed to stating neutral facts about the article.
 * This may lead to an overrepresentation of a position, causing the audience to sway in the direction of supporting the African American children.

Sources and References:


 * All sources are backed up well by secondary sources of information.
 * The content accurately reflects what the sources are stating, and the translation from sources to draft are smooth.
 * As mentioned before the sources are not all necessarily current, but they are thorough in the information that they provide.
 * There is a diverse spectrum of authors throughout the references, and they all discuss the topic from a separate angle.
 * All links work properly.

Overall Impressions


 * Overall, the content adds clear perspective to the article, and it adds great quality.
 * For a couple suggestions, I would suggest removing the potential biases from the draft, and potentially add current sources.