User talk:Bacchusrosso

PAF
I see two issues with the article as you wrote it:
 * 1) There is nothing in the article to explain what makes this method notable, nothing to suggest that it is widely used or particularly successful.
 * 2) The references, although from different sources, are not truly independent because they all originate from people who either market it or use it.
 * Even the Orton-Gillingham article itself is somewhat promotional in tone and needs improvement.

I would just mention the conflict of interest guideline as well, as you are a fairly new user. Deb (talk) 14:25, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

PAF revision
Deb thanks for your feedback. I edited the article. In terms of its notability, I added references to studies by University of South Alabama and Columbia University looking at its effectiveness, although I didn't include wording to describe it as successful to avoid language that could be interpreted as promotional. I also explained more the program's characteristics. At the same time I removed, as per your comments, references coming from sources of schools that use it or education experts who apply it for tutoring. How should I proceed for you to review it? Shall I post it? Thanks Bacchusrosso (talk) 15:22, 3 December 2017 (UTC) Bacchusrosso (talk) 13:26, 6 December 2017 (UTC)