User:Mdufre4/sandbox

I am working in the Digital Divide in Japan group. We are using ErinElWhite's sandbox for our article development. You can find it here: User:ErinElWhite/sandbox

 Article Evaluation :

I believe that everything presented is relevant to both topics. Nothing distracted me or seemed out of place from the article topic. Both articles appear very neutral. I do not believe that the information was biased in any way. Maybe there are some sections of information that came off as a little overrepresented. At some points, it seems that the point was already made and supported by enough adequate information, yet the paragraph continued. This made some sections appear verbose or overkill.

I checked several citations. Every link I clicked worked and the information appeared to support the claims of the articles. From what I clicked, no source seemed unreliable or inappropriate. Again, the source material and articles themselves read very neutral, which is a main goal of a Wikipedia article.

Under the Digital Divide article's Talk page, there was information about "Old Talk," "How to add more," and "External links modified." These conversations documented how the article contributors communicated with one another. For example, it informed contributors of when a new edit took place. This article is an educational assignment at the University of Toronto and is similar to our WikiProject. It was rated mid to high-importance.

I actually do not think there is a big difference in the way Wikipedia discusses the two articles compared to what we will be doing in class. These two articles should be every student's goal when it comes to contributing to our own Digital Divide articles. Both articles were very factual and neutral in tone. The information was heavily supported by appropriate and reliable sources. They read exactly how Wikipedia articles should read, which is why we, as students, should model our respective articles after these two.