Talk:Digital divide in Germany

Review
The Wiki article on the Digital Divide kept true to the topic but personally, I think it expanded into some irrelevant wording. For example, in the last paragraph of the section of, “Reasons and correlating variables”, the author kept talking about how every reason can be seen from different angles before getting to the point. Then the article strayed back to the economic gap in the US and its effect on the Digital Divide but cited different articles but didn’t explain why they were significant.

The article, Digital divide in Canada, is well written and doesn’t overflow with unnecessary information. It also had a good introduction that made me want to keep reading without getting distracted, for the most part.

The article on the Digital Divide mostly focused on the economic factor of the Digital Divide versus expanding on location like the Digital divide in Canada article did. Clearly, the author believed that the main factor to the digital divide is mainly based on a family’s wealth.

The article, Digital divide in Canada is neutral and covers what we need to know, for the most part.

In the Infrastructure section, the graph already presented didn’t need to be thoroughly written and explained because the graph is presented anyway, and that section was just a bunch of numbers and words that I wasn’t interested in, nor did I know what anything meant.

The viewpoint on a family’s wealth was underrepresented in, Digital Divide in Canada, as opposed to the Digital divide article that focused too much on it.

The citations of the article, Digital Divide, work. But I am unsure why there are 8 different citations at the beginning of the topic, “ Reasons and correlating variables”, how do can all of the 8 cites focus on that first sentence? Maybe, they were placed wrong?

The citation for, Digital divide in Canada, do work and relate to the topic explained by the author.

Most information comes from other related written articles, in both, the digital divide, and the digital divide in Canada. In the Digital Divide wiki page, there were a few sources, 38 & 39, which seem biased because they target women and Latinos.

Information in, Digital divide in Canada, came from reliable sources such as government websites, knowledgeable authors, and actual data.

Sources Pretty much varied from the late 1990s to 2014, in the Digital Divide page. Personally, I think Wiki articles should be more fact-based with the present, so there should be some updating to this page.

Sources for the Digital divide in Canada was a lot more present and ranged from 2001-2016. This proves that information is more up to date and reliable.

The digital divide article, needed links modified. There is a section about how to add more which is clear that there is missing information. The page also didn’t introduce the topic to well in the beginning.

The article, Digital divide, is rated of high importance and is a part of a WikiProject.

The article, Digital divide in Canada, is rated as C-Class and has been rated of Mid-Importance, and is part of the WikiProject Canada.

Wikipedia discusses the digital divide in more of a technical form, versus covering background information, history, present information, and ongoing testing for the topic.

I think the Digital divide in Canada page is written better, covering the past, the present and the future, as well as, keeping the information up to date.

Overall, I think both of these articles were good sources to evaluate for our own knowledge of knowing the difference of a well written Wiki page, versus an unwell written Wiki page. I learned a lot by evaluating these articles and will keep in mind my own evaluations on these articles for when I begin to write an article.

Panaitescu96 (talk) 01:27, 18 September 2017 (UTC)Andrea Panaitescu, Group C

Group Comments
First of all, good job on beginning your work on your project and citation list. I would recommend first expanding this into a full, working outline. This will make things easier as you move forward into beginning the drafting process. I would also suggest that for now each of you puts your name by the section you are working on. I have included a link to the Digital Divide in South Africa page. This is an excellent example of about how much you should be writing for each section, though obviously your sections will likely not be identical to the South African ones. [|Digital Divide in South Africa] Remember, if you need any extra help you can come to mine or Dr. Benoit's office hours. Again, great job on the beginning work for your project. Mmaggi9 (talk) 17:10, 11 October 2017 (UTC) Melanie Maggio: TA for LIS 2000

Group Comments for the Draft
You have an excellent first draft. While it is your lead, you've already worked it into sections that will make it more helpful going forward. I would suggest first that you finish up your outline, as this will help you while you finish your first draft which is due this week. I would keep going as you have, with keeping each section focused on the digital divide. If you have any further questions please contact Dr. Benoit or myself.

Mmaggi9 (talk) 02:47, 17 October 2017 (UTC) Melanie Maggio: TA for LIS 2000

Additional comments
Looking at the draft on Monday morning, I am only seeing two sections and a lead. Make sure there is a section for each person in the group in addition to the lead. Also, be sure the language you are using in the lead is specific to Germany otherwise it will likely be taken down as replicating the main digital divide article. Eabenoit (talk) 15:05, 23 October 2017 (UTC)eabenoit

Peer review
I have reviewed your article draft and I believe that somehow I may be looking at the wrong page. I see where Dr. Benoit commented on a lead and two sections, however, I did not see the sections. I will review based on what I can see which is a lead and links to some resource articles.

It appears that you have a well throughout plan for the structure and content of your article and have them outlined. You do need to expand on those ideas though.

I also reviewed your resource materials linked to the article and they appear to have a large amount of information as it pertains to your article.

In general, you are off to a great start and simply need to expand on your ideas.

Agutie31108 (talk) 21:58, 29 October 2017 (UTC)Agutie31108 Agutie31108 (talk) 21:58, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

I observed a typo in my review with the word throughout, it should read thought out! Thanks and I apologize! Happy editing! Agutie31108 (talk) 22:03, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

Firstly, let me start off by saying that I am not the brightest crayon in the box and I was finally able to find your groups full article draft.

The lead is well drafted and relates directly to the article content that follows. It flows smoothly into the finer points of the article. Each section is loaded with content and does not seem to get off topic or provide useless information.

It appears that the article is unbiased and written well as it will apply to Wikipedia. Also, numerous references were cited and the many that I reviewed look to be reliable trustworthy sources of information.

I am far from a master editor but to me you guys have complied data related directly to your article and have done a great job putting it into a well organized and informational article.

Happy editing! Again! Agutie31108 (talk) 22:41, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

Peer Review
The introduction section seems to discuss the digital divide in general and not the digital divide specifically. The article can be improved by using more formal language. The section titled "closing the gap" should be renamed because it implies an opinion about how to solve the digital divide. The links seem to work, and support the article's claims. While the sources all are valid and reliable, the topics discussed sometimes stray from the topic.

Marisa Naccari

Peer Editing
Karl Malone Peer Edit: The article overall is very strong. It contains great information all fully supported with sources. I feel as if the opening summary statement could have better information to target Germany and it's digital divide. I love how it explains what digital divide means but also include some information about Germany as well. The rest of the article is very strong. It contains statistics that are all supported with strong sources and provided adequately. Continue the great work!

-Karl Malone

Addressing Peer Review Summary
Based on the information and reccomendation by our classmates I edited our introduction section, "Digital Divide in Germany", to be more based on the divide in Germany and not just the divide in general. The comments by our peer reviewers were really helpful, and helped me understand what was said in earlier comments on our article. I will constantly continue to make sure all information is relevant to the article and remain unbiased. Panaitescu96 (talk) 23:57, 1 November 2017 (UTC)Andrea Panaitescu

Addressing Peer Review Summary
I have taken Marisa's advice into consideration and decided to change the section title from "Closing the Gap" to "Potential Solutions". She made a good point about the implications of the previous title and I appreciate the input. I also appreciate everyone else's comments as well. -Grant — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ggardi1 (talk • contribs) 02:02, 6 November 2017 (UTC)