User:Nlavinier/Guided Reading/Wsciales Peer Review

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing?

Nlavinier.


 * Link to draft you're reviewing
 * Guided reading (No sandbox)


 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)
 * Guided reading

Evaluate the drafted changes
The lead for this article was a definition of Guided Reading. There is also an introductory section. It's a good idea to start with the definition of what guided reading is. However, in the introduction section, I would recommend making that shorter and breaking it up into smaller sections. There you have its history, research about it, pros and cons, etc.

The content is very informative. It not only talks about the practices in the US but also where it was founded. There is one section that mentions reading levels ex: NC level 1A/2C. There is no explanation about what these numbers and letters mean. It may help the reader to give a brief explanation of what this reading level means. Additionally, in the "Features commonly found in a 'Guided Reading' session" I love how it shows all of the different activities that will go on in the classroom. Within that section in this passage "Re-reading Guided Text "Individuals." Provide a 'familiar book' box for each group, containing texts recently used in Guided Reading. Children can re-read texts to themselves or with a partner as an independent activity to give them opportunities to develop fluency and expression and build up reading miles. " I love how you explain what you are doing and why. This will help give them opportunities to develop fluency and expression and build up reading miles. If you can add an explanation like this of why this activity is important for each section it will make your article stronger.

The tone and balance is neutral. I do not see that there is any persuasion in this article. You lay out the facts nicely with pros and cons and how everything works.

Images and media: If images of guided reading in a classroom was added to your article it will help the reader conceptualize it better.

Overall, I think you have lots of good information here and you did a good job.

Best,

William Sciales