User:Ottawa10/Google Classroom/Petermu9s Peer Review

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing?

Ottawa10


 * Link to draft you're reviewing
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Ottawa10/Google_Classroom?veaction=edit&preload=Template%3ADashboard.wikiedu.org_draft_template
 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)
 * Google Classroom

Evaluate the drafted changes
Hi Ottawa10, great work on your edits. Here are my peer review:

Lead


 * I see that you have made subtle changes to the lead. I would agree with you that the information present gives a concise overview of the Google Classroom service and its general applications. I would say that any additional details should be added to the body of the article instead.

Content


 * I like the table format for the "History" section. In comparison to the previous texts, I think this provides a more concise and easy-to-read format that delivers the progression of the Google Classroom service over time.
 * One of the things for the "History" section that you may want to consider in addition to the table is a brief exposition talking about the origins of the Google Classroom idea. For example, what prompted the people at Google to consider the development of an online classroom service.
 * Another consideration may be addition of new articles relating to Google Classroom with respect to COVID19 pandemic. I see that you have used the original article. I wonder if given the recent need for online learning, more articles highlighting the use of Google Classroom during the pandemic can add more strength to the page.
 * I liked your expansion on the "Features" section with addition of video as well as details on the "Assignment" sub-section. I think given that the mobile applications have been introduced since "January 2015", you may be able to expand a bit more the changes and updates to mobile applications if there are any.
 * I think the "Criticism" portion is well-written but can be expanded on. Particularly the criticisms of student privacy and data which you have highlighted but I think listing out the details of that can give readers a greater sense of that the security concerns are. There is also mention of the classroom layout being simplistic and unappealing that does not have a citation. I think this is somewhat subjective can be taken out unless there is a citation for it.

Tone and Balance


 * Overall I think the article is well-balanced with respect to its tone. It's neutral in the sense that you have done a thorough job in describing the progression of Google Classroom and highlighting both benefits and criticisms of the service
 * I like the addition to the "Criticism" section where you added some of the concerns of Google Classroom in regards to socio-economic status during the COVID pandemic. This provided updated information and expanded concerns and criticisms from greater spectrum of users.

Sources and References


 * All your sources are pretty current and as expected given that Google Classroom is relatively new service. I don't see any concerns outside of maybe the addition of sources for the comment on the classroom layout being "simplistic and unappealing".

Organization


 * Well-organized article. I think the orders are succinct particularly with the addition of your table in the "History" section.
 * There are a few spelling errors in the "Criticism" that just needs to be cleaned up but otherwise everything looks good.

Images and Media


 * I think it would be beneficial to include images and perhaps screen shots in the "Features" section. I see you have added a video but I think being embedded with in the text, it might be skimmed over by viewers. If you can added images as a part of the "Features" section with captions, it would bring a lot of attention from readers.

Overall Impressions


 * I was able to learn a lot of about the Google Classroom service from reading your draft. It looks great and I think your edits are certainly an upgrade from the previous page. I hope you may consider some of my suggestions and I look forward to reading the final product.

Thanks,

Peter