User talk:Ajb321/Rapport/Publicduck Peer Review

Michelles peer review for (Ajb321)
Hi, here is my peer review:)

= Rapport =

Lead


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer? -there is no updated reflection in the new content. I have read the previous lead and it was great, no need to add on or fix anything.


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic? -Yes, I see you have added to the section about building with lots of references to back up your new information. It is relevant because you are informing the reader of how to achieve the right benefits of international rapport.
 * Is the content added up-to-date? - Yes, the one article that you have added is from 2020, which is fairly new.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? - I think if you do a great job adding in every part that is necessary. I believe you do not have anything that does not belong.
 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics? - Yes, the article does deal with some sort of wikipedia’s equality gaps. I believe when they talk about education it shows that some people do not have the resources to get that education.

Tone and Balance


 * Is the content added neutral? - For the most part yes, Building rapport can improve community-based research tactics, assist in finding a partner, and allow employers to gain trust in employees.This is an example of how well they put together the neutral tone. I enjoyed this type of content because you are including everyone and to benefit the outcome of everyone's life.
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?: I believe you could have developed more on the topic of In student-teacher relationships, intentionally building rapport through individual meetings has shown an increase in student engagement and level of comfort in the classroom. You could express an example of   relationships and how they can be developed.

Sources and References


 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? -They are all backed up by a reliable secondary source. And you do a good job of making sure they are all relevant to the topic.


 * Are the sources current? - Yes you have articles that go only back to 2019 which is fairly new and they are a well known topic.
 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible? Yes, you have added a great amount of resources and that is very important when you are trying to convince the reader of your topic. The Arthur that you have chosen were great and i would not change anything about them.


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? Yes it is easy to read and understand the meaning behind the words. It's straight to the point and allows me to know how important building relationships are.
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? - Yes it's broken down into sections/general headings Building and resources which is the new part you have added to the article.
 * Overall impressions


 * Reading your article edit on the Rapport was a great eye-opening article. I was able to pick up on the tone and sense of direction you wanted the readers to endure while doing so. I would not change anything about the changes you have decided to make and I would always keep in mind the great resources you have added.

-Michelle Gonzalez

Michgonza123 (talk) 22:15, 24 October 2022 (UTC)