User talk:Amairanifarias/New sandbox

- only have added 432 words our of the required 500 words - in drafting it would be helpful to label what sections your additions are being added to or where you intend to add this information - good job at following the strict no bias policy of Wikipedia - sandbox work is confusing because of no basis to where the information is being inputted - to insert the title of an article, put the title in [] - add more to "The black family structure is seen as a source of low student achievement because it is seen as a family structure that creates a “culture of poverty”.[1]" Aliguckes (talk) 15:21, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

Peer Review
AmieraIsmael.amiera (talk) 00:00, 20 October 2018 (UTC)
 * your draft does a well job on not taking sides on this issue. It was a good draft that had neutral content, no bias shown.
 * I think an important thing for you to do is to compile those bullets into one thing or split them based on the different factors of racial achievement gap
 * Additionally, I think it would help if you used standardized testing scores as evidence for how low-income students are at a disadvantage
 * I think you should replace "some people" with something else.

Lisa's Peer Review
Ameria, this is a really strong start on the final addition. I would firstly recommend that you add more content to fit the 500+ word count requirement. Your information is presented in a pretty unbiased way, so I would say you're all good on that front. You also include relevant information within the 10 year limit. All your links worked.

I would suggest that you do a copy edit of your draft while working on the final version. In the first bullet point, for example, you use the word "gap" a lot in places where it could be substituted for something else. One final note, I would suggest not using your first source as many times as you do if they're all separate sentences. While the source seems reliable, it may constitute a breach of the unbiased perspective Wikipedia goes for. Overall, this is a strong draft and with some minor edits it could be a really great addition to the article! Lisaphg (talk) 04:11, 22 October 2018 (UTC)Lisa

Sam's Peer Review
Ameria, your neutrality on this topic was great and you kept very little bias within your section. Your links were all good resources and were very current topics and very prevalent to today. Like Lisa said above, using one source for a lot of different parts and pieces of an article can be biased and can lose you credibility points. All in all however, I think that the entry you wrote is very informative and not only did you write well, it seems like you picked a topic that you feel very strongly about, which is when we all write best. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Samlinder (talk • contribs) 14:18, 23 October 2018 (UTC)