User talk:Marygailmccowan/sandbox

Group Comments

  First of all, good job on beginning a working outline. This will only help you as you move forward into the drafting process. I would suggest that each group member type their name next to the section one which they are working. This will make it easier to see who is working on what. You also need to begin a more expansive citations list. I am including a link to the Digital Divide in South Africa page. This is an excellent example of about how much you should have written 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 the beginning work to your project. 

Mmaggi9 (talk) 18:38, 11 October 2017 (UTC) Melanie Maggio: TA for LIS 2000

Group Comments for the Draft

While you still have a good working outline, this week you need to get your first draft finished. Please make sure you write your lead and that you elaborate on each of your sections. Make sure you keep everything focused on the digital divide, and that you put your complete list of sources. Please contact Dr. Benoit and I if you have any questions.

Mmaggi9 (talk) 04:13, 17 October 2017 (UTC) Melanie Maggio: TA for LIS 2000

Mary's Peer Review by: Caroline Lowry

Hi Mary/Mary's Group,

Overall, your draft seems off too a great start! It seems like you/your group has a solid foundation of knowledge on the Digital Divide in Thailand. One main thing I would add to your draft though, is make sure you separate your ideas into sections. Also, you want to make sure you have a lead (which is at the very beginning). A lead is most important because it is a introduction/preview for the reader into what you are going to be talking about. So, in the lead, you could really discuss the digital divide, what a digital divide is, etc.

As far as your paragraphs go, the information you have in there is very useful and awesome!!! If you could, I would try to go just a bit more into detail under each section and add a little more information. You can never elaborate too much! Each of the sections is important, you shouldn't give an abundance of info, but too little is never good. You want the amount of information to equal and match up with the importance of the topic (if that makes sense)!

I also see for income and gender you don't have any information, some things can be hard to find information on... I found this out for myself within my own project! If you can't find info on them, just delete them from the draft! Remember, your group is only required to have THREE SECTIONS!!

I LOVE how you singled out and made a solutions paragraph. That really brings attention to this and shows it's significance and over all I think you're group has done a great job!!! :)

Carolinelowry (talk) 21:03, 26 October 2017 (UTC) Caroline Lowry

Peer Review: by Madeline Thomas

Hello, Mary's group! I really enjoyed reading the first draft of your article. According to the amount of information you all have gathered, I know you all have worked hard to find reliable sources. Some things in your article, however, have little to no information under their section. Don't worry! I think that you guys have plenty of information to write an article on, but I suggest deleting the portions that have no information and elaborating on the sections that do. Another thing that stood out to me was that there was no lead section for your article. A lead section should be a brief paragraph summarizing what the rest of the article consists of; it is a summary of what the reader will be learning and reading throughout the article. If you all will collaborate and add one of these, your article will be even better. Also, in my article, my group and I wrote our sections in paragraph form without the bullet points. I think that this makes the article easier to read and understand. You guys may want to try and change your article into paragraph form. The tone of the article was great! It did not sound biased in any way in my opinion. However, I did notice several run-on sentences and vocabulary mistakes. The sentence structure can be fixed with a comma and conjunction, semicolon, or separating sentences with ending punctuation. Also, a thesaurus can help to find better or correct wording. Overall, I think that you guy's article is coming together very well, and with a little work, it is going to be perfect! Keep up the good work! Mtho273 (talk) 13:48, 27 October 2017 (UTC) Madeline Thomas

Peer Review: Victoria Vercher

I feel like this article is a good start but needs to be “beefed” up. There’s lists of things, however, it doesn’t flow that well and you don’t need to list things you don’t have information for. I also feel that the layout and the aesthetics could look a bit more organized and could be cleaner. You don’t really have a lead or even a definition of what the digital divide is. I suggest writing a short paragraph defining this and a link to the “Digital Divide” page. You should probably rewrite this and talk about things in paragraph form instead of listing them. I also feel like you should find more sources on this topic because you shouldn’t use only two sources. If the references listed are also sources, then I suggest citing the sources better. Overall, I think the article has potential but needs some work. Vverch1 (talk) 17:32, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

Peer Review: Emily Loisel

I think you guys should consider writing everything in paragraph form, and not as bullet points. It's a little hard for me to follow what you're conveying. Each point you make should be more explained. Each section of your article is about one sentence long. I also think it would make it easier to follow if you made headlines like we have on this Talk Page. Maybe this is just an outline that I'm looking at. You should also have a lead section describing the basis of the article. You're missing a lot of punctuation throughout this article; though, I'm not sure if this was intentional since everything is stated in bullet points. Lastly, I would read over anything to see if it makes sense with your topic. A lot of it seemed irrelevant. If you feel that everything is relevant, be sure to give some explanations as to why this is.

Karl Malone response to peer reviews

The feed back by my fellow class mates was great. They praised us where our work was strong and used constructive criticism where necessary to better enhance our article. I think the best thing noted was a reminder we only need 3 sections which was great to remember. We lack some research on areas such as gender so focusing on 3 others we have more information about would allow for our article to be strong. Our introduction needs to be developed and will be worked on in the time to come. Thank you everyone for your critics

-Karl M. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kmalon7 (talk • contribs) 04:28, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

Peer Review Response

I think these are some very great points on further developing this article. Just like any great article it starts with some question needing to be answered or a couple of thought to build on. Greatly appreciated the constructive criticism. Definitely some things to look over and use you guys points of view as our audience to create a great final product. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mjleblanc90 (talk • contribs) 03:57, 4 December 2017 (UTC)