User talk:Aidanrocha/sandbox

Caitlin's Peer Review: I had trouble understanding a large part of your contributions. When reading your additions, my only suggested remedy for the confusion it elicits is perhaps for you to add some words in the sentences that you may have originally forgotten or have written the wrong word for. For example, in your last sentence you wrote, “though the Tucson Unified School District, on December 27, 2011, a court hearing decided that the MAS Program did not abide by the new law”. Through the use of “Though” in the beginning of this sentence, you are implying that you will conclude the sentence with information contrary to what you just stated or new information which will somehow enlighten the reader. This information, as you can see, is never provided. Also the sentence, “The MAS Program arose controversy with the TUSD over their intentions and teachings which led to the Arizona House Bill 2281 in 2010 banning the classes being offered in school and the program as a whole,” leaves me confused, as well. I understand what you are trying to say, but perhaps work on the structuring of the sentence to convey your message clearer and more concisely. There are many sentences throughout your contributions like the two I have pulled as examples. Work on finishing your thoughts and changing sentence structures or words to convey information more clearly. None of your information is cited. Please add citations for each sentence added. Also, when adding others’ perceptions or ideas, be sure to add a signal phrase. I believe the information necessary to understand the article topic is present. The overall presentation of this information is what must be improved.

Ross's Peer Review:In the history section, your changes were great. Like you mentioned in the evaluation, the article could use some rewording for some of its text. Of the sentences you crossed out, you replaced them with much more objective and to the point sentences. I think you did a good job of keeping the tone neutral, especially in the part about graduation rates. I think that the history section, with your edits is much easier to read because you made the language clearer. Some of the sentences before were a bit difficult to read, and not written in a way that was straight forward, so your edits improved the readability of the History section. I would recommend, however, that you build up the section with more content. The History section of an article is like the foundation of the article, and a section that is highly read by the audience, so I think that it is still a bit short for the kind of article that it is. I don't know how much literature there is on the history of the MAS program because of how specific it is, but if you find any more information, it could really help the article to expand this section more. Demographic section: You cleaned the sentence up well. Vision and Goals: The overview sentence of the section is really good. Make sure you remain neutral with this sentence and with your second bolded sentence. “More Importantly” is an opinion word, so try finding a different phrase, or just going into “the overall vision…”. Controversy: The text about Bill 2281 is good. Clear, concise, gives you the exact reasons for the ban. There seems to be a typo or a piece of a sentence before the sentence “Then, on January 10…”, Definitely try to make the section more fluid and read easier. It seems like it covers a number of topics with only a sentence, at most two sentences on each. I think transitions would improve things, as well as a couple more sentences here and there that elaborate on the deciding against the law and the banning of the books. Overall, I think the article is lacking content. You fixed most of the readability issues, and incorporate some good sentences, but I think the article needs more material in almost every section.

Peer Feedback Questions
A. What feedback did yo receive on the article talk page or from your peer reviewers? Overall, the feedback I received was very formal and helpful for me to continue drafting my final edits to the Mexican American Program article. There was a good balance for recognition of what I did well as well as critical evaluation on things that I did not do so well, and things that need revision. Ive mainly focused on revising the article as a whole and editing existing sentences and paragraphs from the past author/s, which still have some mistakes and errors that need to be fixed. I do need to focus more on the content gap noticed within the history section, and from the current editing, adding and citing more necessary information to complete the foundation of the article. some of my ideas and existing contributions need to be made more clear for the reader, as well as fixing some sentence structure I decided to use.

B. Based on this feedback, how will you revise the new content you drafted? As mentioned, I simply need to go back and edit some the sentence structure mistakes and wording errors within my current draft, as well as continue adding content to a few sections, mainly including the history section, and adding citations to my work on top of that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aidanrocha (talk • contribs) 16:59, 3 December 2019 (UTC)