User:Ashke96/sandbox2

Article Evaluation
After reading the articles about the Digital Divide and the Digital Divide in Canada, I thought it was interesting learning about an issue that affects both countries in similar and different ways. I found both to be neutral and relevant, often discussing the same factors that contribute to the issue. The references present were clean and organized, and the handful of links I clicked on also all worked. The talk page of the Digital Divide article included modifications the author made to several of the sources, in addition to saying that he wished to add more information about attempts to bridge the divide. However, the talk page for the Digital Divide in Canada was blank, so I believe the author could start a conversation on there to encourage other postings. They're related in the sense that they tackle the same issue and describe how it affects the people in each country. The proposed solutions are also similar, because most of the issues are not exclusive to just one country. These articles present the information differently than we've talked about in class because it goes into more depth about the underlying causes and variables.

Digital Divide in Vietnam outline
1. Demographics in Vietnam/access to internet

2. Government control/censorship

3. Economic & technological developments

4. Country's outlined plan for the future

Group Comments
First, good job on beginning your outline. As this is one of the only pages where your newly combined group has posted anything, we are right now assuming that you have chosen to do the Digital Divide in Vietnam. Please make sure that everyone is posting in the group sandbox space, not the talk page, and that you get a working list of citations. As you move forward into the drafting process, I would suggest that each group member types their name next to the section they are working on. This will make it easier to see who is working on what. I am also including 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 come to mine or Dr. Benoit's office hours. Again, good job on choosing a project and beginning to work on the outline. Mmaggi9 (talk) 18:34, 11 October 2017 (UTC) Melanie Maggio: TA for LIS 2000

Moved Outline
Hey guys, I am working with Dr. Benoit right now. We moved the outline into the sandbox space, and I added some draft language that I've been working on. Agutie31108 (talk) 14:30, 12 October 2017 (UTC)Agutie31108

Group Comments for the Draft
While you still have a good outline, this week you need to have a first draft written. I would suggest first working on your lead, and next beginning to write for each section. Make sure that you keep everything focused on the digital divide, and that you also have your sources lined up. Please contact Dr. Benoit and I if you have any questions.

Mmaggi9 (talk) 04:06, 17 October 2017 (UTC) Melanie Maggio: TA for LIS 2000

Peer Review
This article looks really good. You have a strong lead section that is clear and outlines your article. Your body paragraphs are very neutral and informative. I only have a few critiques.

Some of the information in your body paragraphs are not backed up with sources. certain sentences like, "Currently, the Vietnamese government restricts access to websites that are critical of the government, politically sensitive content, and even the websites of human rights organizations" stood out to me because they were not linked to any sources so make sure to go back and cite those. Otherwise, the content in the sections is relevant to the topic. I found the most uncited information in the sections "Government Censorship" and "Increasing Information and Communication Technology in Vietnam". In the first sentence in the section "Government Censorship" link the organizations in the parentheses to their websites or other Wikipedia articles about them so the readers can gather more information on them.

As for the sources, they seem to be reliable and the links work just fine. They do seem to be cited incorrectly when compared to other Wikipedia articles, but that may just be my own misunderstanding. I think your article is off to a great start. Jlee214 (talk) 01:08, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

Will Clapp's Pier Review
The Lead - The lead is a good overall and sums up the meaning of the article. I feel as if it could be expanded a bit more with more general thoughts of what a digital divide definition is. The article itself - I feel as if the article contains all topics that were mentioned in lecture. I think it has great flow and is heavily supported with sources. - The second sentence under government censorship does not flow very well. - The last sentence under government censorship is just a little too unformal. Change out the phrase "forever to download" Balance - I feel as if all articles are equally containing the right about of information. I would like to see more information on how the future will be shaped for Vietnam. - Who are the internet users? I think this would truly strengthen the article. Neutral content - I find the article remains very neutral consistently throughout.

Overall the article was great. It covered all the major topics and hit with great valid sources of information. The speech was formal and professional and contained no errors of grammar. Keep up the great work! I think including individuals who use the internet would strengthen it even more and expanding the lead as well. Overall, great work

Ashlyn's Peer Review Response
My sections included Vietnam Internet Demographics and Government Censorship, so I focused on the critiques listed for those paragraphs. For Government Censorship, I added a citation and reworded the second sentence, as it was pointed out that it did not flow very well. For Vietnam Internet Demographics, I also added a citation that was missing. As far as answering Will's question of "who" the internet users are, I plan to research this further and include this information in the final draft. In addition, I realize that some of the citations were not correct, so I did my best to remedy them with what information I was able to gather from them. I would also like to have a section about what the country's future outlook would look like, but that would have to be a section written by another one of our group members. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ashke96 (talk • contribs) 04:54, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

Landix's Peer Review Comments
I worked on the section of Government Censorship and with the comments both peer reviews provided, I gathered more sources to make my contributions to our article more concrete. I had to take a step back and look at how and where I gathered my information and decided to see which amount of research was credible enough to cite and to put back into the article. AShlyn made more corrections in her contributed sections that also helped us improve our article a little bit more. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lalcorn23 (talk • contribs) 05:59, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

Post Review Editing
Kpc.nguyen (talk) 06:59, 6 November 2017 (UTC) I've worked on some revisions for the economy and technology development. I check my paragraphs for missing citations to make sure all presented information where necessary is referenced to the source. I've also restructured some sentences of my paragraph to follow the flow of rest of article's paragraphs. I am working on determining placement/rearranging sentences so I can add a breakdown of technological development in the country timeframe and event. I have a reference for future outlines I will post so everyone can look at, we can each contribute a couple sentences or like Ashlyn suggested one member can work on it.

Updates based on Dr. Beniot's Comments
I deleted the outline from the bottom of the article and removed the name from one of the sections. Additionally, I added a few sentences to the lead however, it should probably be double checked because I'm not the best editor, nor am I very good at grammar. I also linked a few of the words in the article to other existing articles.Agutie31108 (talk) 19:33, 10 November 2017 (UTC)