User:Ecbon/Deaf Education/Akanai14 Peer Review

Peer review

This is where you will complete your peer review exercise. Please use the following template to fill out your review.

General info

• Whose work are you reviewing? Joy4heart
• Link to draft you're reviewing: Deaf education

Lead

Guiding questions:

• Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer?
• Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?
• Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
• Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
• Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?

Lead evaluation

I am not sure if the Lead has been updated. I see no evidence in history, however, it could be in personal sandboxes. I think the Lead includes a very well written introductory sentence that describes the topic. The Lead discusses the general topic but does not include brief descriptions of the major sections. I am a bit confused if the article mentions adaptive materials and interventions discussed in the Lead. It can kind of apply to sign language, interpreters, and note takers, but I am curious to know if anything else is used. The Lead is very good at being concise in conveying the general idea of Deaf education is.

Content

Guiding questions:

• Is the content added relevant to the topic?
• Is the content added up-to-date?
• Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
• Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics?

Content evaluation

The pros and cons of different specialized settings added a good perspective if someone was not familiar with mainstreamed or specialized settings. All of the content seems to be up-to-date. The article is already pretty developed and talks a lot about Elementary to High School, however, I feel like it could expand on secondary education. I only read one sentence mentioning Gallaudet University. User could mention experiences or issues that are specific to college or university deaf students.

Tone and Balance

Guiding questions:

• Is the content added neutral?
• Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
• Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
• Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?

Tone and balance evaluation

The content added was neutral because it gave both pros and cons of the different settings. It did not promote which one the user thought was better, only what were the experiences of deaf students in the differing settings.

Sources and References

Guiding questions:

• Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
• Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
• Are the sources current?
• Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible?
• Check a few links. Do they work?

Sources and references evaluation

The content was backed up by reliable sources when looking through them. However, for reference number 27 it is a little outdated because it is over 31 years old. The rest are current and comes from diverse spectrum of authors. The articles that I did check had working links.

Organization

Guiding questions:

• Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
• Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors?
• Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?

Organization evaluation

It was very easy to read and well written. I have not found any grammatical or spelling errors. The content is well-organized and even has a contents section with links to each section.

Images and Media

Guiding questions: If your peer added images or media

• Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic?
• Are images well-captioned?
• Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations?
• Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way?

Images and media evaluation

I do not see if user added images. The images that are already added are a nice add-on to the article that helps the reader solidify the information they may be reading. There can be pictures added in the second half of the article since all of them are in the beginning.

For New Articles Only

If the draft you're reviewing is a new article, consider the following in addition to the above.

• Does the article meet Wikipedia's Notability requirements - i.e. Is the article supported by 2-3 reliable secondary sources independent of the subject?
• How exhaustive is the list of sources? Does it accurately represent all available literature on the subject?
• Does the article follow the patterns of other similar articles - i.e. contain any necessary infoboxes, section headings, and any other features contained within similar articles?
• Does the article link to other articles so it is more discoverable?

New Article Evaluation

N/A

Overall impressions

Guiding questions:

• Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete?
• What are the strengths of the content added?
• How can the content added be improved?

Overall evaluation

The content added did improve the overall quality of the article and did make it more complete. The added references and links also strengthened the article. I think the article is already pretty good, but if you add a section about college/university/secondary education experiences then it would be great. Good job to you and your team!