User talk:Redpandafan

hi

- penguinblueberry — Preceding unsigned comment added by Penguinblueberry (talk • contribs) 03:33, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

Hi! I'm super excited to work with you this semester! CelticsFan3 (talk) 19:32, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

Welcome!

Hello, Redpandafan, and welcome to Wikipedia! My name is Ian and I work with Wiki Education; I help support students who are editing as part of a class assignment.

I hope you enjoy editing here. If you haven't already done so, please check out the student training library, which introduces you to editing and Wikipedia's core principles. You may also want to check out the Teahouse, a community of Wikipedia editors dedicated to helping new users. Below are some resources to help you get started editing.

Handouts
Choosing an article to edit Editing an article • Add images to articles Citing sources on Wikipedia
Additional Resources
You can find answers to many student questions in our FAQ.

If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to contact me on my talk page. Ian (Wiki Ed) (talk) 20:17, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

Introduction

Hi! I'm Emily and I'm from Hong Kong. Thisismyusername31 (talk) 06:16, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

Week 7 Peer Review

Hello, redpandafan!

Great start to your article. I had never heard of Vertesi's work before and you do a good job of summarizing the body of her research and subject interests. The lead is a good start, but I think it might include a lot of detail that could be devoted to separate sections. For example, you might just simply state her educational background and research interests to give the reader a sense of her work before diving into specific details. I notice in other biographical wiki articles that there tends to be a separate section for works published, awards and accolades, and specific projects. This is all mentioned in the lead, so you might consider making it more concise. I would definitely suggest looking at other well-developed wiki articles for reference, as this helped me a lot when working on my article.

For the body of the article, I noticed you do not have any citations or links to other articles. In future drafts, you will want to add this. I think you might want to add other dimensions to make the article more developed. Most of the article is devoted to summarizing her research, it might be beneficial to include some early life and biographical information to start. You could also add how academia has engaged with her work or how her research has been impactful. This could be its own section to demonstrate the relevance of the article. Also, I did not see a clear connection to the topic of privacy so you might want to clarify that. I cannot see your sources but since you reference Vertesi's work a lot I am assuming she is your primary author. You might want to add sources by other authors and more diverse secondary sources.

Overall, the article was very well written and easy to follow. You do a good job summarizing Vertesi's body of work. Casademasa (talk) 02:31, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

Peer Review Week 8 Janet Vertesi

Hey redpandafan!

Great job with your article. I really enjoyed the objective tone, descriptiveness, and conciseness of your article draft. I learnt a lot about Janet Vertesi. Would recommend fixing up your sourcing, but otherwise, your article looks great!

Denmum (talk) 04:51, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

Week 8 Peer Review

Hi Redpandafan!

I like how the article looks so far. It's got all the important bases covered. As far as formatting goes, I would suggest that some of the information in the intro be left for other sections. For the intro, I would focus on the basic details like their birth, profession and what they're know for. The other stuff can wait until later. I'd also focus on specific facts and not analysis of their works since that's not the goal of Wikipedia. The article could use more sections, but obviously hasn't been finished yet. However, what you have looks good so far.

use of "minor edit" checkbox

It appears to me that you have been inappropriately marking many of your edits as "minor". Please review Help:Minor edit for clarification as to when it is appropriate to check the "minor edit" box. Thank you. Also, please remember to sign your edits on "talk" pages with a sequence of 4 "tilde" characters. Fabrickator (talk) 09:18, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

I had been hopeful of entering into a dialogue with you. As a particular example of my concern, I take issue with edit of Trojan horse (computing) with revision comment: "removed sentence which failed verification".

The explanation for why this "failed verification" is that:

1. It was reported a long time ago.
2. A single piece of malware was identified as having been affected.
3. There is no claim that this malware had some degree of prevalence.

My reaction:

1. There's no particular reason to believe that this technique couldn't still be effective today.
2. It's not clear why it matters that a single piece of malware was identified as having been affected.
3. It's not really apparent that removing this content would be appropriate even if this technique weren't still effective.

Fabrickator (talk) 02:53, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

Sorry for my lack of response! Your criticism definitely makes sense; I apologize for the edit. I will be more careful in the future with what I edit and proper conventions. Redpandafan (talk) 02:59, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

Just as a point of clarification, I notice that you are including the "four tilde" sequence in the "edit summary" (resulting in the four tildes being visible in the article history). The four tildes are specific to the content on discussion-type pages, where they get expanded to the username and enable everybody to see who's saying what. Fabrickator (talk) 05:54, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

Peer Review (Junior Leadership)

Hi Redpandafan!

The draft of your article looks great! I think it is good that you are bringing up her background and giving a snippet of her published works. A suggestion would be to shorten your lead section and move the information about her education, awards, etc. into its own separate section that could be titled something like Background or Early Life and education, where you can focus more about her as a person. I think it would also be cool if you used the profile template to include a picture of her as well as listing her name, birthday, nationality, alma mater, just to name a few. You can check out and look through other Wikipedia pages of people as a guide! There could be other sections that you may also want to add after looking at them too.

Overall, good work! I think it is very interesting how you are going through all of her publications and dedicating a section. I would say my biggest advise would be to start adding hyperlinks and add all of your citations. It will harder to try going back and adding the citations after you've written the whole thing as you may not remember when and where you've referred to her work. By adding the hyperlinks and the references, it will help mimic what the actual article will look like. Also, under magazine publications, instead of leaving the links to the magazine articles, you should cite them after each explanation/or at the end if you aren't explaining all of them.

copy edit - In your first paragraph in the lead section, you repeat "Vertesi has done significant research" and "Vertesi has done research on digital sociology" so look into rewording that

copy edit - (Seeing Like a Rover: Images and Interaction on the Mars Exploration Rover Mission) : "This source is also a journal entry piece" - You've already stated that it is a peer-review journal based on the section it is under so no need to repeat.

copy edit - (Introduction to This Special Issue on Transnational HCI) : "Particularly, the role of technology in modern global processes has allowed us to live “transnational lives”, where we are no longer confined to the spaces we occupy" I think the tone of this sentence may not be so neutral and try to avoid using we and us. Hiiisparks (talk) 08:52, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

Week 9 Peer Review

Hello Redpandafan!

I think this is a really great article and I enjoyed reading it! It is very easy to read and you break down complex topics in Vertesi's work in a way that makes it very accessible! I honestly had a hard time finding issues with this article. I just have a few minor suggestions but overall I think it looks great!

copy edit - "Vertesi wrote this to educate the reader on this topic, and it covers a wide range of ideas with sections varying from rover physics to scientist mentality and efficiency." content - "By taking a socio-material approach, Vertesi identifies that tensions that a system of computer-supported collaboration can create, an idea she labels the “co-working paradox”." You could consider defining the term socio material more or linking to a larger wikipedia article that explains this concept. content - under the section "Introduction to This Special Issue on Transnational HCI" I feel like you could maybe expand a bit more as this gives a pretty vague sense of the content of the article. For example, you mention how "transnationalism is a critical component of computational systems" but I think you could elaborate a bit more as to why that is. copy edit - I think the section "Magazine Publications" could be organized differently. The articles are a little lumped together, so maybe you can try giving each article a subheading or going into a little more detail. For example, the article "My Experiment Opting Out of Big Data Made Me Look Like a Criminal" sounds very interesting, but it's hard to get a sense of how opting out of data collection is seen as criminal. small copy edit - i noticed a couple of contractions like it's you might want to consider using it is just to be more formal content - you might want to include (if there is) any controversy or debate on her work in the academic community just to be more balanced.

The only other things you will want to add are citations and links to other articles. Overall, great job! Casademasa (talk) 21:45, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

Week 10 Peer Review

Hey Redpandafan! I like your article. I'm gonna take some time to point out a few things I think could be added or changed in each section.

Janet Vertesi

I think this intro is good. It does a good job of introducing the person and explaing their importance. I think it does veer too much into the direction of analysis though, mainly the second paragraph in the intro. I'd try to add some citations of people talking about Janet Vertesi and reword it so that you're talking about how other people perceive Janet Vertesi. In addition, I think the ordering of the information isn't ideal. I would try to put her accomplishments in chronological order and include some info about how she arrived at fame.

Work and publications

I don't think there needs to be a sections this long talking about works and publications. Most article I see on Wikipedia talking about scientists usually has a bibliography (as in the person's bibliography containing all their work) and/or a section called "career" which goes over what they've done. Usually, it's not this long, and it seems like you do a lot of analysis which shouldn't be the focus on Wikipedia. I do appreciate the effort you put into this section though. I just think it could be abbreviated a lot more and it would fit the article better.

Research perspectives

I would call this section "criticism" or "Praise and criticism" since it would be a lot more clear as to what it is about. Don't use words like "interestingly" since that has subjective implications. Avoid words like "thus" as well.

Overall, I think the main issue is that the article isn't very objective with regard to Wikipedia's definition. There's a lot of analysis. Most of everything else is great though. I think it's ready to move to the mainspace if you include some more citations. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Superunsubscriber (talk • contribs) 00:45, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

Week 10 Peer Review

Hi Redpandafan!

Loved your article, here are my thoughts on each section:

• Introduction: This section is nice, given it's objective tone, descriptiveness and conciseness. It's very well written. I like to biographical information blog that you've added as well. I would recommend looking into sourcing this section somewhat.
• Seeing Like a Rover: Images and Interaction on the Mars Exploration Rover Mission: Great tone, concise, describes the research very well. I'm sure you will source properly.
• Mind the Gap: The London Underground Map and Users’ Representations of Urban Space: Once again, objective tone, describes what research is about and overall great job.
• “All these worlds are yours except …”: Science Fiction and Folk Fictions at NASA: Again, objective tone, descriptive, concise, clear. Great job.
• Working Apart, Together: The Challenges of Co-Work: Again, objective tone, descriptive, concise, clear. Great job.
• The Greatest Missions Never Flown: Anticipatory Discourse and the “Projectory” in Technological Communities: Again, objective tone, descriptive, concise, clear. Great job.
• From Affordances to Accomplishments: PowerPoint and Excel at NASA: Again, objective tone, descriptive, concise, clear. Great job.
• Introduction to This Special Issue on Transnational HCI: Again, objective tone, descriptive, concise, clear. Great job.
• Works and Publications: Overall: Overall, the works and publications section was fantastic. Maintained an objective tone throughout, kept solid on the descriptiveness and conciseness and provided enough information to understand the research easily. I'm sure you will source properly.
• Making Sense of Enterprise Apps in Everyday Work Practices: This is an interesting section, given it looking at a perspective on conducting research rather than the research itself. The tone is good. The information is concise and easy to understand. I have faith you will source it properly.
• Representing Computer-Aided Design: Screenshots and the Interactive Computer circa 1960: Once again, interesting section. Good tone, concise, descriptive, I'm sure you will source properly.

Overall, I loved your work. I think you've done a great job. One edit is in the “All these worlds are yours except …”: Science Fiction and Folk Fictions at NASA section. The edit is to make techno scientific into techno-scientific. Other than sourcing, which I'm sure you'll do properly, the article looks great! Denmum (talk) 06:18, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

Peer Review Week 10 (Junior Leadership)

Hello!

Good job continuing to improve your article! I really liked how you included the infobox, and I think it will help a lot of people if they need to find any short and simple information about her. My suggestion here would be to only list her awards and achievements with the year maybe like (2009) afterwards. Here you should put the specific names of the awards, and if you want to include more information about them, you can create your own Awards and Achievements section at the end and explain them. You don't want to be wordy in these infoboxes as they shouldn't contain long phrases. Also, you should shorten the Known For section as well to be something like Social Science and Technology Research, for example.

I think it would be beneficial if you put her bio in a Career Section that can include all information about her schooling, her jobs, etc. Also, in the lead section, you should italicize the publication: Seeing Like a Rover... like this. This helps make it stand out and not confuse the readers as it is a long title.

One thing again, I want to emphasize that it is very important that you add hyperlinks! This is to connect articles to concepts or words that people may not be familiar with and allow them to learn through finding other Wikipedia articles. It is also essential to add more citations. There is a minimum of 20 citations you have to use, but this is for you to back up your work and to make the article more trustworthy and reliable. With each paragraph, you should have at least one citation, and if you are able to find more sources outside of you 20, this would also greatly benefit your article!! Overall, great job and continue working on it! You are doing great, and I am looking forward to your final draft!

copy edit: Magazine Publications: Criminal", -- comma should be in between quotes copy edit: “transnational lives”, -- comma inside quotes copy edit: Seeing like a Rover: "This source is also a journal entry piece, meant to educate its reader on the sociology of scientific labs. Vertesi wrote this to educate the reader on this topic, and it covers a wide range of ideas - sections varying from rover physics to scientist mentality and efficiency." - You already put it under the Peer-reviewed section, so no need to restate that it is a journal article. Also, the second sentence doesn't seem to add much to the paragraph. You should be using your annotations to help write your article but don't make it seem like you are answering a question. If there are parts of your annotations you are using, try to make them seem less like you are answering the questions so it does't seem robotic. Hiiisparks (talk) 06:47, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

Peer Review Week 9

Hi Redpandafan,

The new additions to Janet Vertesi's work and contributions was a really interesting read and I liked how you broke up the sections into different types of work that Vertesi has created. I liked how each summary of Vertesi's work was concise so that readers could get a general overview of Vertesi's peer reviewed articles, magazines, and conferences. I think one thing to add could be more citations and references so that readers also have a sense of where this work is coming from. I think the lead section gives a good sense of what direction the article will be heading in.

Thisismyusername31 (talk) 06:11, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

Peer Review Draft 1

Peer Review Draft 1 Hi!

A really interesting topic and article, I haven't heard of Vertesi's work beforehand. The introduction was engaging and provided a good summary of Vertesi's work. I think it would be helpful to add detail on where the rest of the article is headed and provide an introduction to the major fields of study that the outline describes. I think the way that the outline is structured is a clear and effective way of conveying Vertesi's work. I think having a section on how Vertesi's work connects to privacy would also be really interesting because the connection is not obvious as of now. It would also be helpful to address the connection with privacy in the introduction just so there's context for the rest of the article. The section with Vertesi's work was a really interesting read. Thisismyusername31 (talk) 14:06, 8 April 2021 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thisismyusername31 (talk • contribs)

Peer-Review Week 11

Hi!

Congrats on uploading your article to the mainspace! That is so exciting! For my suggestion, I would first start off my checking which citations you haven't used and make sure that are included. For your resources, make sure you hit your minimum of 20 citations. You should also create a header named "References" to separate the article from the bibliography. I would also spend some time going through your article and finding any possible links to other Wikipedia articles to create hyperlinks. These are very important to allow your readers to navigate to other articles if hey are unfamiliar with some concepts.

I also want to point out that you have a header called Janet Vertesi. I would remove this and move your lead section above the table of contents. You wnat your lead to be the very first thing that reader sees, so this would help make it more visible. I would also suggest splitting your lead in half. You don;t want it to be too wordy. You can instead create a different section and put the rest of the information there so that people only get the introduction at the beginning. AN example section about be something like "Career" "Academia" "Focus" etc.

For the Conference Studies section, I feel that mentioning her involvement in conferences can be moved up in the article as it seems to get really lost in the long works and publications section. You could mention this with the other details about her life, but this is just a small suggestion. I also want to lastly note that the awards in the infobox is really long, so it would be a good idea to shorten this and go more in depth in a separate section where you can explain the awards as well as list them.

Overall, great work and great job with the whole article! it is very impressive and will provide a lot of good information for the public. One last thing to mention is to try to stay neutral in the Research Perspective section as you don't want to tilt the readers one way or another by thinking one perspective is correct/others are wrong. Other than that, yay you're almost done!

copy edit : Seeing Like a Rover: Images and Interaction on the Mars Exploration Rover Mission --- "This source is also a journal entry piece, meant to educate its reader on the sociology of scientific labs." I don't think this would be too important for the readers to know, so you can take out.

copy edit : Mind the Gap: The London Underground Map and Users’ Representations of Urban Space --- "employs establishes it as an interface" Confused here on what it is.

copy edit : “All these worlds are yours except …”: Science Fiction and Folk Fictions at NASA --- these people do, and thus act" Remove the comma and thus

copy edit: Working Apart, Together: The Challenges of Co-Work --- "method of working, by" Remove comma

copy edit: Introduction to This Special Issue on Transnational HCI --- "transnational lives”, remove quotes and comma "Specifically, however," Use one or the other and not both.

copy edit: Magazine Publications --- 'Her article "Stop Counting on Individuals To Solve California's Water Crisis" written in April 2015 argued' Add a comma in between the s and " in Crisis and after 2015. Criminal", Comma inside quotes

copy edit: Making Sense of Enterprise Apps in Everyday Work Practices --- "computing, and explain" remove the comma "different direction - instead, arguing" Can remove dash and instead Hiiisparks (talk) 18:45, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

Week 11 Peer Review

Hi Redpandafan,

Nice work developing your article and uploading it to Wikipedia. I think it is very well-done and formatted in a great, easy-to-understand way. You do a great job giving a general overview of Vertesi's work, and the information you include is what I would hope to find if I were to search for this topic on Wikipedia. I think the lead section is strong and gives a good introduction to the topic. I noticed you mention specific works by Vertesi, I would suggest removing that unless it is one of the seminal or most well-known works that she is known for. I think it makes the lead a bit too information-dense. I like how you have organized the article into different sections, it makes it very easy to follow. I also liked how you added the research perspectives section to include context as to why this information is important or relevant to the field. One other note i would add would be to cite each sentence that includes information from your source.

Copy edits: Particularly, much of Vertesi's work focuses on "how and why do we know what we know?" -- You use quotes here but it is unclear what you are referencing or where this is coming from. I think you could consider using more concise language to represent this idea

Her projects have attempted to find answers to this and similar questions; thus, since her PhD dissertation on Mars -- remove thus and make it into two separate sentences.

Vertesi analyzes the connections between objects and spaces through the interesting case of the London Underground Subway -- very small edit, but you might want to consider using value-neutral language so it's more encyclopedic.

However, Vertesi claims that the visual technology that the map establishes it as an interface between the city and its occupants, an essential connection between the person and the urban space itself. -- change it to acts as

Her analysis creates crossovers between science, urban studies, as well as the previously mentioned concept human-computer interaction, taking a more holistic approach to the role that the seemingly simple Tube Map has in London urban society. -- remove "previously mentioned" to be more concise, change to "concept of"

Thus, Vertesi’s “affordance theory” claims that the material aspects of software such as Excel aim to bridge the gap between social and technical determinisms -- could you define more clearly what you mean by social and technical determinisms

Overall this a very well done article. It's clear you put a lot of time and work into it so great job! Casademasa (talk) 20:45, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

Peer Review Week 11

Hello!

Your article looks really good and I like the way that it is structured. It definitely gives a really comprehensive overview of who Janet Vertesi is and all her contributions to the field of sociology. The Wikipedia links added are really helpful and give great additional detail to the article. The summaries of her work and publications are presented in a really clear and concise manner. It gives just enough information for the reader to gain a general understanding of her work. For the lead section, I think it does a really good job of introducing Vertesi and is written really well. But some minor changes could be to possibly change the wording of "done research" to "conducted research" to give a more formal tone. Also, I think for the last sentence, "PhD from Cornell University, and Vertesi has won..." could be broken into two sentences to give more clarity. For the Career and work in academia section, I think you could change "have attempted" to just "attempt" to refer to her work in present tense? The phrasing "its connection" for the last sentence might be a bit unclear on what exactly "it" refers to. I also think this sentence "conferences, and Vertesi " could be split into two. I really liked the addition of the research perspectives section at the end as I think it gives great nuance and context to outside opinions of Vertesi's work. The work was cited well and there were many helpful references given throughout the article. It was definitely really interesting learning more about Vertesi's contributions.

Thisismyusername31 (talk) 05:58, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

comments about Vertesis article

Take them or leave them...

1. "Janet Vertesi is an American Associate Professor of Sociology"

This just doesn't read right. What position is an "American Associate Professor"? Oh, you mean an American and an "Associate Professor". Most confusing. I have noted on some other pages using this exact same wording that the caps are omitted from "Associate Professor". But also, I recall some discussion about not mentioning nationality in the lede unless it's particularly pertinent. I'm not sure that's a real rule, but it seems not to be very relevant for somebody employed at Princeton University.

2. titles not distinguished from sentence text, e.g. ... her texts include Seeing ...

I am not sure what is the exact right markup is for this, but something should set off the title, perhaps quotes or italics to distinguish it.

3. "... Vertesi claims that the visual technology that the map establishes it ..."

I am unable to figure out how to grammatically parse this sentence.

4. missing wikilink for Johannes Hevelius!

5. "... and JL Blomberg in their work Computer Supported Cooperative Work: The Journal of Collaborative Computing have ..."

I am really confused about this. What's the title of the journal and what's the title of the paper? General form for things is to make a claim that's supported by a source, which is identified in a footnote. I'd like to see this paper in a footnote, except you're really providing a commentary on the paper. Unless there's some source that makes a statement about that paper, then I don't know what should really be done with this. As it is, i feel that this construct is very difficult for the reader to deal with.

Perhaps these comments are more critical than some of the "positive feedback" in the peer reviews. I have a rather different perspective than the people providing these "peer reviews", I am more concerned about maintaining content quality than I am about discouraging potential new contributors to WP, so take these comments as you will. Fabrickator (talk) 22:07, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

Janet Vertesi moved to draftspace

An article you recently created, Janet Vertesi, is not suitable as written to remain published. It needs more citations from reliable, independent sources. (?) Information that can't be referenced should be removed (verifiability is of central importance on Wikipedia). I've moved your draft to draftspace (with a prefix of "Draft:" before the article title) where you can incubate the article with minimal disruption. When you feel the article meets Wikipedia's general notability guideline and thus is ready for mainspace, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page. Mccapra (talk) 18:53, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

Concern regarding Draft:Janet Vertesi

Hello, Redpandafan. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Janet Vertesi, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 19:02, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

Your draft article, Draft:Janet Vertesi

Hello, Redpandafan. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Janet Vertesi".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been deleted. If you plan on working on it further and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:55, 23 November 2021 (UTC)