User talk:Bburn13/sandbox

Homework for Friday, Feb. 6th: [1]

Approved. Josef Horáček (talk) 19:49, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Homework due on Thursday, Feb. 12th: �� Producing Good Citizens: Literacy Training in Anxious Time. Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press, 2014. Project MUSE. Web. Feb. 2015. <http://muse.jhu.edu/>.

Preber, B. J. Financial Expert Witness Communication: A Practical Guide to Reporting and Testimony, John Wiley & Sons, Inc. May 2014.Hoboken, NJ, USA

Beljaars, Ben. "Implementing Legal Information Literacy: A Challenge for the Curriculum", International Journal of Legal Information. Jounal. Feb. 2015.

Carolan, Mary. "Use of Plain English in Legal System Advocated". "The Irish Times" Sept. 6, 2003: Pg. 4. Print.

Bburn13 (talk) 15:09, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Are you using the same article for the second assignment as for the first? Judging from the sources, that seems to be the case, but please clarify. Your sources look good. Josef Horáček (talk) 22:34, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please go ahead and integrate the sources into the article. Also begin the next assignment. Josef Horáček (talk) 19:11, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Bburn13:Get to work on your assignments. The deadlines are passing by. Josef Horáček (talk) 20:06, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Group Comments

  First of all, good job on beginning to work on your lead. However, at this point in the class you should already have a working outline and source list. As you move forward in working on your draft, I would suggest that each group member type their name next to the section they are working on. This will make it easier to see who is working on what. Also, make sure you are all posting in the group sandbox space. I am including a link to the Digital divide in South Africa page. This is an excellent example of about how much you should be writing for each section, though obviously your sections will likely not be identical to the South African ones. [Divide in South Africa]
  Remember, if you need any extra help come to mine or Dr. Benoit's office hours. Again, good job on beginning the lead, but please make sure all group members are contributing in the group sandbox space as you move forward into the drafting process.

Mmaggi9 (talk) 18:15, 11 October 2017 (UTC) Melanie Maggio: TA for LIS 2000[reply]

Group Comments for the Draft

The paragraph you have written brings up a lot of information that you will need for your article, though it does need to be grammar and spell checked. What you should do next is: first, break up this paragraph into a good outline so you'll know your section titles; second, elaborate on the information you already have; and third, create a list of your sources. As you will need to have your first draft done this week, I would suggest moving all of your work solely to your sandbox. If you have any questions please contact Dr. Benoit or myself.

Mmaggi9 (talk) 03:31, 17 October 2017 (UTC) Melanie Maggio: TA for LIS 2000[reply]

Additional comments

In addition to what our TA noted, since you are now a group of two, you should have a lead and two sections. Eabenoit (talk) 15:51, 23 October 2017 (UTC)eabenoit[reply]

Peer Review (Ann Ebrahim)

One thing this article is lacking as of right now is sources and an outline. Currently, the lead conists of a lot of jumbled facts and statistics with no structure, organization, or sources. Another easy fix is to spell check it because I found numerous gramatical errors such as "alohas" instead of what I think is supposed to be "alone has." Along with the outline, separating the content into sections will help y'all on the organization front. I like how you included how gender effects the digital divide in Pakistan in your lead and also how the language used in the article is not biased or geared to one perspective.

Natalie Cusimano's Peer Review

I can see where this article is going in that sections focused on are internet access and gender differences. The statistics are helpful in relaying the topic of the article. This article needs an clear outline, sources for the statistics mentioned, and spelling/grammar corrections. Some topics to include could be why/how Pakistan is one of the South Asian countries with internet access, more details on gender difference, and another section. This section could focus on age differences in internet users or geographic factors.

Peer Review

I think you did a good job of introducing the topic as it relates to Pakistan. The information is great for a lead section and gives you a lot to build on as you develop the next few sections. As a suggestion, you could expand on some of the factors you discussed that contribute to the digital divide in Pakistan. For example, you mentioned the effect that gender has on the digital divide. You could further discuss the impact of this and also discuss other factors that contribute to the digital divide. Additionally, you could discuss the change in the digital divide over time. Is it getting better or worse? And why? Your article has a strong foundation to build upon and I hope I was able to help.

Peer Review (Ben Dezendorf)

I have reviewed the article that you have to this point on the digital divide in Pakistan. I would like to note that there is some compelling and well researched content here. Perhaps you could expand on some of the things that you have said such as how cell service is extremely limited among women users. Further explaining how the government is working to bridge to digital divide or if they are not taking steps to address it you could expand on that as well. I also feel as though you might be able to be a bit more concise if you created an outline you could use to structure your article. There are also some minor spelling, grammar, and syntax errors that will need to be addressed. In conclusion I think you are headed in the right direction, just remember to be as specific as possible and cite all sources.

Peer Review Response

The responses are very helpful to the success of this project. The lead needs to be developed more and we both need to establish our sections in depth.

One of the most helpful suggestions is from Ben suggesting we expand on the research between women and cell service.

Another suggestion that was very helpful was from Natalie. She suggested we need a more clear outline and sources to support where our article is going. She also mentioned age differences and geographic factors which can really help our article be more engaging to future readers.

Lastly, Ann's suggestion was also very helpful. She pointed out how we need to be more careful with grammar which is extremely important for future readers being able to read our article.

From Kalvin and Bethany — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bburn13 (talk • contribs) 04:28, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

We appreciate reviews and will use these to expand our article over the next few weeks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bburn13 (talk • contribs) 04:24, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]