User talk:Bacchusrosso

PAF

I see two issues with the article as you wrote it:

There is nothing in the article to explain what makes this method notable, nothing to suggest that it is widely used or particularly successful.
The references, although from different sources, are not truly independent because they all originate from people who either market it or use it.

Even the Orton-Gillingham article itself is somewhat promotional in tone and needs improvement.

I would just mention the conflict of interest guideline as well, as you are a fairly new user. Deb (talk) 14:25, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

PAF revision

Deb thanks for your feedback. I edited the article. In terms of its notability, I added references to studies by University of South Alabama and Columbia University looking at its effectiveness, although I didn't include wording to describe it as successful to avoid language that could be interpreted as promotional. I also explained more the program's characteristics. At the same time I removed, as per your comments, references coming from sources of schools that use it or education experts who apply it for tutoring. How should I proceed for you to review it? Shall I post it? Thanks Bacchusrosso (talk) 15:22, 3 December 2017 (UTC) Bacchusrosso (talk) 13:26, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]