User talk:Ty9139

Christa25r (talk) 02:13, 29 November 2014 (UTC)Christa Rossell

I’ll be reviewing the United States Secretary of Education article. This article begins with the definition of the United States Secretary of Education. The article provides insight on the role and the importance of, United States Secretary of Education. The structure of the article was clear and concise. I personally, liked the list of all the Secretaries of Education dating back to the early 1980s. The article had a lot of pictures, but not enough information. The references seem reliable; however, I would advise for more references in order to make your argument concrete. The group is in the right direction and I would rate their performance at a 4. What I liked most about this article were the different Secretaries of Education, whoever served in that position. A few improvements would be to provide more information and references. I would also like to know more about who is Arne Duncan, the current Secretary of Education. These improvements will improve the quality of the article.

Article: United States Secretary of Education

Articles key points: The key point of this article appears to be identifying and classifying current 	and previous Secretaries of Education by party affiliation and time in office.

Structure: The group used diagrams and images well but there could be some elaboration on what roles and responsibilities the Secretary has instead of just pure timeline of the position.

Balance: I think that there could be more information about the importance of the position and possibly some more information on historical relevance.

Language: The language is in the proper form but it would be nice to see a little more in the ways of explanations and relevance.

Opinions/ Value Statements: Not in this article

References: This page only details the timeline of former Secretary of Education’s so it only has one reference, although that source is good, it will need additional references in the future.

Reliability of References: The reference used is a legitimate but since there is only one it will be necessary to have more references as the page grows.

Progress:3

Positive: The way the article looks when it is opened is awesome. The structure makes it come across as very professional with the current secretary appearing on the right and all previous secretaries on the table. This is great use of space on the page to make it appear more legitimate.

Negatives: I believe there should be a few more sections to the page highlighting the importance of the position and how it has changed or been changed by policy.

Contribution: If the article were to have a little more background on significance of the position or historical outcomes that the position has affected. This would help to create a more rounded page that would fulfill most peoples needs when looking into what the United States Secretary of Education has done.

Additional Comments: The page looks really good, even if you do not have time to add more sections this is a great point for another editor to start from.

Peer- Review
Which article are you reviewing? I am reviewing the “United States Secretary of Education” article. The article is a existing article on Wikipedia that the group is editing and adding.

Does the lead section summarize the article’s key points? What are the key points of the article as you understand them? The lead section refers to the key points that will be discussed in the article, which is identifying those who were/are the United States Secretaries of Education. It further discusses the classification of those individuals into separate parties and work during their time in office.

Is the article’s structure clear? Does the group use/plan to use headings and subheadings, images and diagrams at appropriate places? The structure adequately describes the key points in an easy-to-follow manner. It adds diagrams and facts to follow that adds to the information of the article.

How well balanced is the coverage? For instance, are the key elements given equal treatment? Are sections overly long or short in proportion to their importance? The article covers a good amount of information that many can follow and read through for good information. The key points are addressed well and rarely goes off topic. The paragraphs hold good information and to the point.

Is the language appropriate? Do the authors use generalized language such as “some,” or “many”? Could these references be replaced with fact? The language follows the structure of the article and is appropriate for the subject and facts being given.

Does the article contain unsourced opinions or value statements? No unnecessary opinions or value statements are presented in the article.

How reliable are the references? Does the article have enough/too few references? Why? The references are good and informative. There can be a few more added to a couple of the sections.

How would you rate the progress made so far? 4

What do you like most about what the group has done to the article so far? Why? The article is good, and stays on point when discussing the key points in the paragraphs.

What are two improvements you think the article needs that were not discussed in the group’s presentation? Few more points should be added with a couple of references. Elaborate on the jobs and impact on local communities, and the progress of funding in this section on the US’s Education system.

How would such improvements contribute to the article’s quality? It would add on a way for people to look through the contributions that the department of Education adds to America and where it will gradually go in the future.

Do you have any additional comments or suggestions for the authors? Good in quality and information. Can’t wait for presentations. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Addienae (talk • contribs) 21:52, 2 December 2014 (UTC)