User talk:Biancafrancisantunez/sandbox

United Express Flight 3411 incident

Not sure if this is the article that I will stick with through the end.... it was kind of a popular news piece two years ago.. but should be something I could possibly find loopholes in.

I will be looking around and thinking of some different ideas or topics, but for now this one is something I am definitely interested in researching through in terms of business ethics.

So, after doing some research I think I am going to switch my article. The only research I could find that was pertinent was already on wiki... figures..... I wanted to focus a lot on stock market decreases, social media, consumer behavior, and industry behavior. Not much, if anything that I could find that would be a worthy add to this article without being opinionated. In the meantime I will think of something new.

Peer Review for MyHeritage - Alejandra Hi Bianca! Great topic! I wanted to go through some of the points that need to be evaluated, you did a great job overall: I think your lead section is very easy to understand, it has a clear structure. I see that you started off with one idea, United, and then moved on to another, which was a better topic, just because it is recent and has more sources. You have Balanced coverage you did this by focusing on a certain aspect of that article, which was the data breach, and you gave the background and explained what happened to MyHeritage. All of your added content seems to be neutral content. Your source from Genetics Home Reference, seems like a very reliable one, and so does the other one from the FTC. This is something that is often heard in the media, therefore very relevant and current.

The lead does not give more weight to certain parts of the article over others. I think you addressed this very well. You gave the background on the data breach incident and explained why it was so important from a neutral standpoint.

Your sections are organized well, in a sensible order.

You stayed on topic and there was nothing I saw that was off-topic. You definitely do not draw conclusions or try to convince the reader to accept one particular point of view, on the contrary you presented the information in a clear and precise manner.

There are no words or phrases that don't feel neutral. For example, "the best idea," "most people," or negative associations, such as "While it's obvious that x, some insist that y."

Your statements in the article are connected to a reliable sources. However, there are two sources.

Great job picking this article, I think that shedding light on the security breach is important to be included in the article. This is a company that is very much in the news and it is important to see what the consequences of that breach were and how the company handled it. I would only suggest maybe obtaining more sources to see the breach from different perspectives.Arodr1334 (talk) 00:36, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

Peer Review- Mariam Nasrullah
I was a little confused because your sandbox states that whatever you put in bold were your additions to the article but the information seems to be similar to the original wiki article. I am writing this review under the assumption that you have changed the original article. The introduction of the security breach in your article is a vital part of the business ethics portion and I found it very a very useful addition. Your explanation of how the data breach could cause damage to a person’s financial status by making them appear as ill-suited for receival of a loan is very informative. In order to give your article more organization, you could add a new section to explain how individuals can try to keep themselves protected from websites that may result in data leakage You could add the information about the Federal Trade Commission to that section. There are only two sources and I would just recommend using more in the future. Then again, this is just a rough draft so GOOD WORK! Overall the information about the breach and the discrimination (based on genetics) in the workplace is very educational. Mariam Nasrullah (talk) 03:58, 4 April 2019 (UTC)Mariam Nasrullah

Prof R Feedback
your additions greatly improve the article but beware of tone...saying "therefore..." indicates deductive reasoning/original thought and you want t stay unbiased and neutral...also beware of writing "you can..." instead rewrite so it is written in the 3rd person  Micalva (talk) 03:00, 17 April 2019 (UTC)