User talk:Lenamar11/sandbox

Topic Peer Review 1
Structure There is great organization of content. Especially the “see also” section was seen as very helpful to provide readers new to the topic area with context. The utilization of links were also found to be very helpful. The links under the universities went to the IGR specific university webpages, not just the universities main website. In regards to readability, the usage of bold gets easily confused with the headings. Different text variation techniques would allow readers to not confuse bolded text with headings.

Intro This is a good, quick overview of the topic: what it is, the process and purpose, and who uses it. Including a table of contents after the introductory paragraph could be helpful to understand the context as well as give an overview of the topic.

History There is good use of links throughout this section, especially when explaining John Dewey and other’s influence. Terms with multiple interpretations or opinions (for example, feminist/feminism in second paragraph) could use an link to the wikipedia page, if there is one. Be careful of using statements some could perceive as bias, such as “spawned considerable social unrest,” or maybe explain the unrest further in a sentence or two. There is a cite error at the end of the second paragraph in the history section - might be a reference error. Overall, very nice and brief history of intergroup dialogue and education.

Methodology It would be helpful to have an overview statement on what this section will discuss. Also, clearly stating the methodology and approach in a concise manner in the intro will help readers frame the section. Should this section be titled goals and approaches? I see clear description of goals and approaches, but none of a clear methodology used. Maybe your definition of methodology is different than mine. In the second paragraph of this section, I recommend switching the first two sentences. The discussion of multi-partiality brings up many ethical considerations. I think an interesting addition of a section or paragraph negotiating ethics in a inter-group dialogue is important.

Presence This section allows for tangible understanding and concepts of intergroup dialogue by listing different approaches, courses, and coursework requirements used by a variety of schools. The comprehensive list of universities with links to each school allows for readers to explore more on the topic and who offers the intergroup education.

Evaluation/Outcomes I would recommend not using the term evaluation in this section. From my perspective, the evaluation field comes with its own standards and practices. The citations seem come from an academic research background. Also, I recommend discussing the limitations found in the research regarding the outcomes of inter-group relations.

References References throughout the piece looks good and appropriately placed, other than the possible reference error in the history section. The reference list looks concrete, however, the doi seems to come up as an error in references 10 and 11. Reference 10 seems to be incomplete. Also is 14 accessible to the general public?

Images I think your team had a great use of images and charts. Both the image and the chart helped facilitate a message.

Jrnulty (talk) 03:38, 11 March 2015 (UTC)jrnulty and sjols