Hello Professor Vitak and Class. The article I choose to edit/contribute information is: Responsive web design the same Article I chose to Critique in Week 2 Assignment.

Notes/Suggestions for editing Responsive Web Designs Article

Link: Responsive web design

  • As previously mentioned, article contains many dead-links in the citation section
  • Article contains blog posts as credible sources.
  • Article contains grammatical errors and run on sentences
  • Added content to the definition section
  • Included purpose and overall goal of Responsive Web Design
  • Also mentioned what a design team will focus on to meet criteria and objectives
  • Examples include: Content, Design, Performance (Appropriately referenced Nielsen Norman Group)
  • Note I was sked to first put my link in the Article's Discussion Page for approval
  • However I did note that many blog posts must have been approved because there are several of these articles
  • Just requested approval for my added content on the articles discussion page.
  • Argued Reasons for adding content (definition lacked purpose and goals for RWD's)
  • Pending Approval
  • As of right now the content will remain on the page

Hello Professor Vitak and Class. The article I choose was Information Science -> Human-Computer Interaction -> User Interfaces -> Responsive Web Designs subcategory.

Notes For Responsive Web Designs Article Critique

Link: Responsive web design

  • This article covers in great detail, the full subject of Responsive Web Designs
  • Article Focuses on: Defining, History and challenges with Responsive Web Designs
  • Specifically Focuses on: PC to Mobile Transition of Web Site Layout
  • Suggests other Approaches to Multi-Device Layout Patterns
  • Overall: Length and Detail is sufficient
  • Too much paraphrasing used in History and Challenges section of the article
  • Purpose of excessive paraphrasing: to make topics and concepts of Responsive Web Design much easier to grasp and understand
  • Article contains some grammatical errors, making some of the content more difficult to read and understand
  • Some Sources are in violation of Wikipedia standards
  • Found Blog Sources and Original/Opinionated Articles
  • Not all facts are appropriately referenced with a reliable source
  • Article sentence structure needs to be revisited as some sentences come off as opinionated
  • Multiple links do not provide page numbers where information was obtained (makes harder to search for and validate information)