User:AiDeveloper12/Artificial intelligence in education/Ramsrav Peer Review
![]() | Peer review
Complete your peer review exercise below, providing as much constructive criticism as possible. The more detailed suggestions you provide, the more useful it will be to your classmate. Make sure you consider each of the following aspects: LeadGuiding questions:
ContentGuiding questions:
Tone and BalanceGuiding questions:
Sources and ReferencesGuiding questions:
OrganizationGuiding questions:
Images and MediaGuiding questions: If your peer added images or media
For New Articles OnlyIf the draft you're reviewing is for a new article, consider the following in addition to the above.
Overall impressionsGuiding questions:
Examples of good feedbackA good article evaluation can take a number of forms. The most essential things are to clearly identify the biggest shortcomings, and provide specific guidance on how the article can be improved.
Additional Resources |
General info
edit- Whose work are you reviewing?
Username: AiDeveloper12
- Link to draft you're reviewing
- Sandbox Draft – Artificial Intelligence in Education
- Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)
- Current Wikipedia Article – Artificial Intelligence in Education
Evaluate the drafted changes
edit(Compose a detailed peer review here, considering each of the key aspects listed above if it is relevant. Consider the guiding questions, and check out the examples of what feedback looks like.)
1. Lead
Yes, the Lead talks about AI tools and issues like privacy and fairness, which matches the article well. But I think it should also include the history of AI, applications of AI, and future plans. Adding 2–3 lines about these missing parts can make the summary better.
2. Content
Yes, the content added is relevant to the topic and up-to-date. The content is not missing, but I suggest you add a little more about the history of AI, applications of AI, and future plans. It talks about fairness, new technology, and what students and teachers think.
3. Tone and balance
Yes, the article is written in a fair way. It talks about both the good and bad sides of AI in education. It doesn’t try to make the reader choose one side. It explains how AI is helping but also shows problems like bias and privacy. I think it is balanced and shares views from students, teachers, and different countries.
4. Sources and references
Yes, the article uses good and trusted sources like UNESCO and U.S. government departments and some peer-reviewed papers. Most of the sources are new (2020–2024). I checked some links and they were working. One source (Hamilton, Ilana) was repeated twice, so you can remove one.
5. Organization
Yes, I think the article is written in a good and clear way. I didn’t see any spelling mistakes, but in the Lead section, there is a grammar mistake: "he the changing landscape" should be corrected to "and the changing landscape." The article is well-organized.
6. Images and media
I didn’t see any images added. Adding a copyright-free image showing AI in classrooms or education could help readers understand better.