Talk:Digital divide in Argentina

Review
First of all, good job on beginning your outline and having the lead written. Your group all appears to be working equally, which makes everything very helpful going forward. One thing I would suggest is placing your name by the parts you are contributing to, at least while you are working in the sandbox. Just a reminder as you move forward into the drafting process, here is a link to the Digital Divide in South Africa page. This is a great example of about how much you should be writing for each section you have, though obviously your sections do not need to be identical to the South African one. [|Digital Divide in South Africa] Please remember that you can come to mine or Dr. Benoit's office hours if you have any questions. Overall great work, and keep it up! 16:43, 11 October 2017 (UTC)Mmaggi9 (talk)Melanie Maggio: TA for LIS 2000

Group Comments for the Draft
At this time you should be further along in the drafting process. You are on to a great start with your lead, and your outline shows excellent sections titles. Please make sure that this week you are using the sandbox to type up the rest of your draft. It should be completed by the end of the week. Make sure that like with your lead you keep everything focused on the digital divide. Also make sure that you have all of your sources ready to add to the article. Please let me or Dr. Benoit know if you have any other questions. Mmaggi9 (talk) 01:27, 17 October 2017 (UTC)Melanie Maggio: TA for LIS 2000

Group Comments for the Draft
I am looking at the group page as of Monday morning, and it looks to be in a similar state to when Melanie last looked at it. There is a new section on availability, and this is a good start, but the first draft should be completed by the end of today. Eabenoit (talk) 14:40, 23 October 2017 (UTC)eabenoit

Peer Review
Lead Section Peer review: -You have a really clear and concise definition of the “Digital Divide in Argentina” and it is easy to follow. -In the Lead section of this article, you write “In Argentina, this divide is just as prevalent as it is in most countries.” This is making a claim. Remember try not to make claims in this type of article unless you have reliable sources to back it up. -The second part of the Lead section is a little confusing. I had to read it a few times to understand what you were trying to portray. You might want to change the wording around in the last sentence of the second part of the lead section beginning with: “With instances of government corruption….” Maybe to something like this: A few things that contribute to the prevalence of the digital divide in Argentina are as follows: instances of government corruption, the implementation of the Internet as a core part of society, and the Internet accessibility that is not available to most citizens. This makes it easier to see the important aspects of the digital divide in Argentina.

Body of the article Peer review: -The setup of this article is very hard to follow. It doesn’t allow me, at a quick glance, to know the causes of the digital divide in Argentina. Maybe you should consider setting it up like this: (but not limited to)

Causes:
 * Government Corruption (talk about instances in which the gov. is corrupted)
 * Internet accessibility
 * 1) Age

Solutions: -There needs to be organization in this article. -You should have different sections for causes and solutions. In this article draft, you bring up new problems in the “Solutions” section. The solutions section should be only for solutions to the existing problems that are already mentioned in the above section (labeled “Causes”). You should have a section labeled “Causes” and just speak of the causes in the sub sections labeled “Government Corruptions”, “Internet Accessibility”, and so on. -There is a grammatical error under the “Government” section in the sentence that starts with “Argentina is combating government…” Maybe you meant to say “A way Argentina is combating government…”
 * Implementation of Internet as a core part of society
 * Poverty
 * 1) Unemployment rates
 * Education
 * E-government
 * Trade Agreements
 * Donations
 * 1) To rebuild schools, bring in teachers/supplies

Sources Peer edit: -You should set up the sources in a numbered fashioned. For example, I clicked on the #3 footnote and it brought me down to the sources area but it isn’t the third source, it is the fourth source that contains info on the government corruption. -Another problem is that a few source links do not work. (for example: “The Adoption of E-government in Three Latin American Countries” source. I don’t think you have the correct format in this citation and that is why it is not coming up as hyperlink. Re-check the format of this source and “The Internet Access in Argentina: Obstacles and Opportunities” source.

Overall Peer Review: Overall, I think this article needs: - organization in the structural component - more causes of the digital divide in Argentina - a balance of viewpoints (not too much of one area as opposed to another area) - More reliable sources such as from textbooks or journal articles - A more professional way of getting the point across (watch the way you word certain phrases) - make sure there are no grammatical errors such as “; however,” rather than “, however,”… When using “however” to separate two clauses, a semicolon is put in front and a comma is put after.

Goodluck with your editing! :) Brookecambre (talk) 19:47, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

Peer Review
I noticed first that the outline of the draft is appropriate for the assignment, and that the solutions section has very interesting information that makes the article pop. I believe the government section lacks proof of the information provided. For instance, I think that if you were to include examples of the kind of "the corruption with government officials", it would strengthen the point of the government section. Overall, progress of the draft is great, and can't wait to read the final product. 00:02, 30 October 2017 (UTC)~sandinguyenSandiyenguyen (talk) 00:02, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

Peer Review
I like that everything is so organized. The leading paragraph needs a little more work (move it before the table of contents). I suggest making links to key words that people my want to look up suck as "e-government" that way people like me can quickly understand. Make a separate topic about the economic aspect of Argentina. From what I could tell you are using good sources.(don't forget to get rid of the temple at the begging when you are done.)

Peer Review Response
Thank you all for your reviews and suggestions. I see that one of the parts that we need to work on is the organization of our article. Also, we need to add some more information into our sections and try to not make so many claims in the article. If we do have claims, they need to be backed up with factual statements and sources. We can also find a few more sources as well.Xh98 (talk) 01:19, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

Peer Review Response
I enjoyed reading the peer reviews. I see including specific examples in my section will strengthen the article. The group will continue to read and review the article to improve it. It's a little confusing having two reviewers say the article is well organized while one does not agree with the organization. We can look at both sides of this and try to update the layout of the article if necessary. Ncusim5 (talk) 03:41, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

Peer Review Appreciated
Thank you to everyone who read over our article and gave helpful advice. We will discuss as a group how to better the article and add more information where it should be placed and allow it to be more organized. I wrote the Solutions portion of the article and will be editing it to not only give more information but also wording it better. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gabbylewis (talk • contribs) 05:40, 6 November 2017 (UTC)