User talk:Jacquelinedang/sandbox

Skylar's Peer Review
Hi Jackie!

'''Sector Article Feedback You had a nice neutral stance in this article draft which I personally found hard to achieve, so good job! I also like how explanatory this article is, it really helps me to understand the topic you are describing!

Here are some points I have on ways to improve: -Is all of this text new or is there some pre-existing that you are adding to? -Your tone/use of language is beautifully academic, but some of the words you use I think could be changed to make it flow more like a wikipedia article. For instance, instead of "the two collective" saying "they both" is more of a wiki-appropriate tone. -I am not sure that you need to both link and give the definition for literacy, comprehension, etc in your article section, I would just have a sentence mentioning them and move on. The point of a link is for the reader to have access to the page for that concept to learn more if they so desire! -Do you have other sources of information besides wikipedia articles that you could reference these statements you are making about how reading and working with others can improve phenomic awareness, etc? Are there studies that demonstrate these claims that could add credibility to your article? I think this could also be interesting to show scientifically how your sector article is making an impact on human development and education. -Maybe integrate build by giving another sentence or two generally about literacy programs, and then say "for example"? Although, you havev so much information, I think you don't even need to talk about BUILD. You could just talk about literacy programs generally and that would also be fine if you feel like it is hard to integrate into the article. -You provide a lot of details and background information, but overall I think it would be helpful to talk more about the literacy programs and associated studies/information/examples of what they do/how they work/how they improve literacy and education, etc.

'''Area Article Feedback For this article, I really liked the statements you are making to explain your point and the information you are using to support. Also, your tone in this one is all around very good -- encyclopedic but also has a more "casual"/less academic language feel that I think is really effective to integrate into the main wikipedia page when the time comes. Good job!

Here are some points I came up with on where to improve: -Have a bit of a lead in similar to your "big picture" statement about what you are going to talk about overall before jumping into the main stuff. I felt a bit thrown into the information vs having that nice gentle ease in that wikipedia does. -I would maybe condense all of this into 1-2 paragraphs, it seems a bit choppy right now all separated. -I think you have the right idea in finding sources or statistics that support your ideas about the benefits of early literacy in higher education. But the statements you are describing are clear and support your main point well. -As for the 3 causes from the handbook, I would say that it is a supplementary piece of information. Instead of explaining these, use this fact to support information with a sentence before this one saying how where or how a student is raised can impact their education, or something like that. If this makes sense? -To take this one step further, you could explain where and how literacy exists in early education? I don't know...you explain what it does but maybe having a brief "how" at the beginning could be useful for the reader.

Hopefully some of this is useful in helping you to revise and finish up your article additions! Let me know if you have any questions!

Smartin gpp (talk) 21:46, 1 November 2018 (UTC)Skylar