User talk:Fjohnstone96/sandbox
Brittanie's Peer Review
[edit]What does the article do well? Is there anything from your review that impressed you? Any turn of phrase that described the subject in a clear way? I think it was really good that you included so many citations. In our training modules they made it clear that the information needed to be facts that were backed up by concrete evidence and you did an excellent job at this.
What changes would you suggest the author apply to the article? Why would those changes be an improvement?
The other article I read included a intersections subsection, since Data justice ties so heavily with social justice and data, I think you should have a separate section connecting these terms.
During part of one of our training modules it said to bold the name of your topic when referring to it in the first sentence. There was not enough information for me to really grasp what Data justice was. I would really like to see more information on Moral guidelines and standards. I would also like to know if companies or people are held accountable for data justice. Including external links from your bibliography will help audiences find the sources easily. You started giving in text citations for one part then did not do it for the others so I would be consistent for the rest of the page.
You talk about solutions for data justice but you do not really touch on why these solutions are needed. I would give a historical background or more examples of the ethical problems of data justice / the implications they pose.
What's the most important thing the author could do to improve the article?
The most important thing will be including more information on the topic and organizing the information to fit a clear structured storyline of what data justice is. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BrittanieJonidi (talk • contribs) 19:54, 10 November 2017 (UTC)
Cappa's Peer Review
[edit]First, what does the article do well?
Is there anything from your review that impressed you? Any turn of phrase that described the subject in a clear way?
What changes would you suggest the author apply to the article? Why would those changes be an improvement?
What's the most important thing the author could do to improve the article?
Did you notice anything about the article you reviewed that could be applicable to your own article? Let them know!
Rachel's Peer Review
[edit]Hi Fran, I had a great time reading your article. I think you are off to a great start, I have included my feedback below.
What does the article do well? Is there anything from your review that impressed you? Any turn of phrase that described the subject in a clear way?
I think it was really good that you included so many citations. In our training modules they made it clear that the information needed to be facts that were backed up by concrete evidence and you did an excellent job at this.
What changes would you suggest the author apply to the article? Why would those changes be an improvement?
The other article I read included a intersections subsection, since Data justice ties so heavily with social justice and data, I think you should have a separate section connecting these terms.
During part of one of our training modules it said to bold the name of your topic when referring to it in the first sentence. There was not enough information for me to really grasp what Data justice was. I would really like to see more information on Moral guidelines and standards. I would also like to know if companies or people are held accountable for data justice. Including external links from your bibliography will help audiences find the sources easily. You started giving in text citations for one part then did not do it for the others so I would be consistent for the rest of the page.
You talk about solutions for data justice but you do not really touch on why these solutions are needed. I would give a historical background or more examples of the ethical problems of data justice / the implications they pose.
'What's the most important thing the author could do to improve the article?''''Bold text
The most important thing will be including more information on the topic and organizing the information to fit a clear structured storyline of what data justice is.
Peer Review - Rachel F.
[edit]I think you're off to a really great start at developing your topic. The sections will need to be developed more but I'm sure that's just because it is a draft. I think that all of the sub-topics you have listed are very relevant to your topic. As the topic of my page is Data Ethics, I think we can share some ideas and concepts with one another because they are similar topics. One thing I will say is that, as we are both covering contentious topics, remember to offer both "sides" of each issue. For example, what are the concerns and the benefits that algorithms pose to data justice? You have a solid draft and I enjoyed reading. Best of luck. (Rachelmf6 (talk) 01:25, 13 November 2017 (UTC))
Peer review, Mark
Great opening overview of what data justice is. It was very concise and does not leave any questions to the roots of the topic. I feel the structuring could slightly change by creating one paragraph rather than two. To me, the first sentence of the second paragraph is a strong sentence to start the overview with. The following section, Arguments for big data, both are great reasons and explanations to why data justice exists. I don’t think the heading “arguments for data justice” does justice. I feel rather than arguments for data justice they are reasons data justice has arisen.
The solution sections is easy to understand and explains itself. Potentially bring in some information from out OKF assignment for furthered information on the “Moral guidelines and standards”.
Lastly, great use of your references. You did not leave any information without reference. In terms of the references themselves, it’s nice that they are all recently published and diverse. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MarkTibshirani (talk • contribs) 14:20, 15 December 2017 (UTC)