User:Naro13/English-language learner/Chunt25 Peer Review

The changes you have made to the article are easy to find, so thank you for that! LOL I also used "bolded" text style to differentiate between what I added to the original article.

Lead

After referencing the original lead to the Wikipedia page, I can definitely see some areas where the original author went into great detail on the English Language Learner. Remember when editing this wikipedia page the Lead is only supposed to state a bit of the information that will be shared in the following paragraphs! Think of it like an appetizer for a dinner!

Content

The content you have added so far is relevant to the topic of your article! I enjoy your neutrality when discussing this topic because it can be easy to become relativley biased. In the first portion of your edits so far (ELLs with disabilities) there is a portion where you reference a "Fact Sheet." As a visual learner myself, instead of referencing the fact sheet, you can hyperlink the sheet directly into the article. I think this may make the article more streamlined instead of the reader being prompted to look at a sheet then have to find it!. As of right now I would say that the overall topic of ELLs with disabilities and assessment biases are over-represented in your edits, but I would assume that you would then go and cover the rest of the topics listed in the article. As of right now I believe you are doing a great job at staying neutral in your writing, however just keep in mind to cover the pros/cons or positives/negatives for whatever you are discussing!

Organization

I also just wanted to touch on the organization of your revisions. I would bold and underline headings you are using prior to starting your discussion on it. For example, put Assessment Biases in its own line and then discuss below. I feel like this may help the reader differentiate the discussions you are about to have, rather then it being a bit clunky when its read. Other then that, I feel like the organization of the article so far is great! I truly believe that having different headings for each discussion will allow the reader to clearly switch gears and understand what is about to be discussed, rather then trying to figure it out at they are reading!

General info
(provide username)
 * Whose work are you reviewing?


 * Link to draft you're reviewing:
 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists):

Evaluate the drafted changes
(Compose a detailed peer review here, considering each of the key aspects listed above if it is relevant. Consider the guiding questions, and check out the examples of what feedback looks like.)