User talk:ErinElWhite/sandbox

Group Comments

  First of all, great work on beginning your outline. Make sure you are also making a list for the citations you are using, as this will make it easier for your references section going forward. I would also recommend that each person puts their name by the section on which they are working, as this will make it easier to see who is doing what during the drafting process. I am also including a link to the Digital Divide in South Africa. This is an excellent example of about how much you should be writing for each section, though obviously your sections will not be identical to the South African ones. [Divide in South Africa]
  Remember, if you need any extra help you can come to mine or Dr. Benoit's office hours. Again, great job on the beginning of your project.

Mmaggi9 (talk) 17:16, 11 October 2017 (UTC) Melanie Maggio: TA for LIS 2000[reply]

Madeleine Dufrene's Response to Peer Review Comments

After reading my fellow students' responses to our rough draft, I feel like I know what changes I need to make to my section. My content had more to do with the population of Japan than the digital divide in Japan. I have begun the process of finding the proper information/sources needed to do this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mdufre4 (talk • contribs) 01:02, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Group Comments for the Draft

While I see that you do have your working outline, this week you need to begin your first rough draft. You need to make sure that each section title is for your digital divide article and is focused solely on that. The same goes for the beginning of your draft, as the content you currently have written does not relate to the history of the digital divide in Japan. Please also make sure you have a list of your citations. Contact Dr. Benoit and I if you have any further questions.

Mmaggi9 (talk) 02:56, 17 October 2017 (UTC) Melanie Maggio: TA for LIS 2000[reply]

Additional comments

Looking at your draft on Monday morning, the biggest issue is that the content does not relate to the digital divide in Japan. It is more just about Japan in general. Eabenoit (talk) 15:07, 23 October 2017 (UTC)eabenoit[reply]

Added some sub topics I will add more when I find the sources I need. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ErinElWhite (talk • contribs) 05:02, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Peer Review - Peter Brooks

According to the peer review tutorial, a good article has a lead section that is easy to understand, a clear structure, balanced coverage, neutral content and reliable sources.

      - Lead section
           - The lead section is very simple and easy to understand in my opinion, however, it could probably use a little more content in order for a  reader to get the full picture and overview of what al is going to be covered in the article.

      - Structure
           - The structure of the article is very clear and easy to follow with the sections labeled out with demographics, including subsections of age, gender,and education, a geographic section, a cultural cause section and a population section.

      - Balanced Coverage
           - As of now the coverage could be more balanced in terms of the content that is in each section. Population has a lot more coverage than the cultural cause section and content still needs to be added to the Demographics section.

      - Neutral Content
           - The content in both the cultural cause and the population sections are from a neutral point of view and is not biased in one way or another.

      - Reliable sources
           - The sources that are cited currently all seem to be reliable and a good source to find information for this article. Just make sure to continue using reliable sources when you gather more content as you guys continue to develop your article.

Pbrook3 (talk) 01:34, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Peer Review Kalvin McCrae

Erin, the lead for your article is short for a lead section. You didn't put in a source for your lead and didn't list factors besides cultural ones.

Marisa, your section is short on cultural causes. It is critical that you elaborate on multiple cultural causes.

Maddie, your section on population was unnecessary for the article. You could describe the population's digital habits instead.

Overall, the article has neutral sources. As for the length of it, it is too short to be considered a wikipedia article. My recommendations are to just add more information and don't focus too much on the small details of the digital divide in Japan and it will be smooth sailing from there. KalvinMcCrae93 (talk) 04:06, 30 October 2017 (UTC)KalvinMcCrae93[reply]

Peer Review Kaleb Bledsoe

Maddie your paragraph is just strictly citing information about the population in Japan. Not really speaking on the topic of the digital divide in Japan. Marisa, your paragraph has good info in it, just need to expand on that info. Erin you paragraph was well constructed just a little short. Overall it is a rough draft and that is the purpose of this is to get help creating it. The article just needs more meat and info in it. Add more about the digital divide in Japan and why it occurs and what it is. Great job, keep citing and writing.

Response to Peer Review: Marisa Naccari

I plan on expanding my section with more reliable sources and plan to use some of those sources to add to the part of the introduction section regarding the cultural cause of the digital divide in Japan. The group plans to work on improving our individual sections while creating a more cohesive piece that is ready to go live. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Marisa Naccari (talk • contribs) 03:06, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]