User:Dmvhustler/sandbox

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)