User:Unique-individual/Nonverbal communication/Cooper0014 Peer Review

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing?

Unique Individual


 * Link to draft you're reviewing
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Unique-individual/Nonverbal_communication?veaction=edit&preload=Template%3ADashboard.wikiedu.org_draft_template


 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)
 * Nonverbal communication

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.)

Content:

The content is relevant to the topic and makes some meaningful strides towards improving this article. The content given is up to date and there is nothing in the contribution that is out of place or that does not belong. I feel that this entry does not address a content gap, but the potential for attention to a content gap is there. The possible exposure that you could have in regards to the deaf community is something that would be good to get into.

Tone and Balance:

The content contributed does come from a neutral place, nothing in this entry seems to be overly biased. There is no overrepresentation in these contributions, but I do think there is underrepresentation particularly in the case of people who are deaf. The content given here is primarily informational, there is no attempt to persuade.

Sources and Resources:

The new content that is given is all backed up by relevant and reliable sources, there are a lot of links to other Wikipedia pages in the earlier parts of the article and more links to actual sources in the later part. I think that there can be more actual sources for those earlier parts, the opening paragraphs are good and would be even better if there were more sources to go with them. The sources are both thorough and current. The sources appear to be from diverse sources and from diverse authors, there are men and women of varying ethnicities that wrote these sources. The links work.

Organization:

The contribution is grammatically correct, it makes sense when you read it through, and it will fit well into the larger space.

Overall Impressions:

This is a really good contribution, it already looks like something that would be in the article itself. It reads well and there is good content in each section. The one criticism that I would have is that there are not any external sources in the first three sections, you do have a lot of links to other Wikipedia pages but if there were external sources you could get more meaningful content and have an even larger contribution.