User talk:Briannachew/sandbox

Hi @Briannachew, I think that your intended topic (touches technology) certainly merits inclusion on Wikipedia, however I would suggest reviewing the Gesture Recognition page (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gesture_recognition) and just make sure that there would not be too much overlap if you create a standalone new article. If you think it is better to start a new article (rather than to add to this one), that is fine--just make sure that the content is distinct from that of the Gesture Recognition article. --Amyc29 (talk) 01:55, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

Peer Review

What does the article (or section) do well? I think it does a good job of neatly summarizing the points that you wanted to make. It looks like you already put it on the live page but it is incorporated nicely into the overall article. The sourcing and wording make it look like any other wikipedia article! What changes would you suggest overall? Is it possible to add a list of some other companies that might be using this tech? You labelled and described three really well, but it might be helpful to give a short list of other examples. Also, you label a subsection "Future of touchless technology" but then you list companies that are already using it. Maybe a title that better reflects this? What is the most important thing that the author could do to improve his/her contribution? Make sure that your bolding is consistent with the article. It's hard to tell what font size some of the subsection titles are later on in the piece, and so I'm unsure if they match. It's a lot of bolding in one section of the article, so perhaps play around with other possible formats. That's just a style suggestion on my part though. Writing wise, you do a really good job of presenting the info in a concise way - but make sure that being concise doesn't mean sacrificing information. I obviously don't know what research you've done, but there seems to be an opportunity to expand upon the Types of Touchless Technology subsection. Stmarom (talk) 04:53, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

Peer Review

The section is added smoothly into the original article and touchless user interface is explained/summarized in a simple and concise manner. I really like the layout of everything and the different subsections; it makes it very easy for readers to follow along. All of the information stated is also clearly relevant to the topic. Under the section about Intel Corp. I would elaborate more on how MFA can help healthcare organizations. You stated that it can help mitigate security risks but I think it would also be beneficial to state more specifically how exactly it would help. Is there a way to this this while remaining neutral? As a reader I'd love to know why/how it helps but also as a writer I'm not sure how feasible it is to do this while remaining neutral.. The most important thing you can do to improve this contribution is to add a few more examples of touchless user interface and to also expand a little bit more on the three examples you have provided (especially about Intel Corp). As a reader I feel like I am starting to understand what touchless user interface is but am still not sure what the "future" of it looks like. Choi.kel (talk) 18:52, 3 August 2017 (UTC)