This article is rated Stub-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Education Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Education, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of education and education-related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.EducationWikipedia:WikiProject EducationTemplate:WikiProject Educationeducation Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Organizations Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Organizations, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Organizations on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.OrganizationsWikipedia:WikiProject OrganizationsTemplate:WikiProject Organizationsorganization Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Virginia Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Virginia, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of Virginia on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.VirginiaWikipedia:WikiProject VirginiaTemplate:WikiProject VirginiaVirginia Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

This article has a definite boosterist tone, promoting Core Knowledge. Anytime a critique appears in this article, a refutation in favor of Core Knowledge appears. Is this article monitored by employees of the Foundation???Gogue2 (talk) 15:16, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like at least some of today's edits are copyright violations, and possibly some violation of neutral point of view. For example, the new section with the heading "Two Strand Approach of Core Knowledge Language Art" seems to be directly copied from the 5th page of PDF listed as the citation. Wikipedia doesn't allow content that has been directly copied from other sources. @Johnbalen:, it's probably best to undo these changes for now. Since it looks like your account is very new, it might be useful to start by learning more about Wikipedia by reading Wikipedia:Contributing to Wikipedia or Help:Getting started. :) --Hebisddave (talk) 13:44, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please note: The content has been edited/updated to cure this issue.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Johnbalen (talk • contribs) 05:11, August 1, 2017 (UTC)

It's awesome that you were working on fixing this, and that you're trying to improve the article in general. Looking at the edits made after copyright violation notices were added, there still seemed to be some problematic parts. Sections like "Recent Efficacy Research", "New York City Pilot", "Core Knowledge Language Arts: A Two Strand Approach", "Research Basis of Two Strand Approach", and "The Importance of Listening and Learning" were very close paraphrasing of the original text, which still doesn't comply with Wikipedia's copyright policy. There are some other types of problems as well, but they mostly seem to be the result of the copying -- the inline, abbreviated citations from the original text were copied directly without including the full citation they reference; the copied document seems to be a publication of the Core Knowledge Foundation so the phrasing or content isn't always in line with Wikipedia's neutral point of view. Wikipedia's instructions for resolving copyright concerns suggested reverting to a non-copyrighted version, so I've done that for now.
I know there's a lot to keep track of when editing Wikipedia, especially when making big edits or trying to add a lot of information. As we get more Wikipedia experience and browse more help files (maybe Wikipedia:Writing_better_articles?) it gets easier, I promise. :) --Hebisddave (talk) 14:33, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]