User talk:Carolinelowry/sandbox

Article Evaluation
·Everything in both articles flowed and stayed on topic. It was relative throughout the entire paragraph. ·The article, I feel, is very neutral. This isn't really an argument article, it is more informative. ·The viewpoints are clearly stated. ·The links work in the citations and people are given credit from any of their information that was used. ·On the talk page, many other author and editors have critiqued this article.

--Carolinelowry (talk) 03:29, 29 September 2017 (UTC) Caroline Lowry

Group Sandbox: Review your topic and find your sources
To the selected to article we plan to provide many things. We plan to provide a lot more information on the Philippines as well as information about Education, Culture, and Religion. We want this article to be very accurate but also very useful! It is an island in itself and so to us as a whole country there are very many things that are completely different and are done and celebrated and recognized way different that we don't even know about. The main point I want to make in this article is to make the unknown, known, and help people while doing so.

Bibliography:

https://www.compassion.com/about/where/philippines.htm https://www.questia.com/library/journal/1G1-13469486/computer-education-in-the-philippines (journal article) http://asiasociety.org/education/religion-philippines

--Carolinelowry (talk) 03:28, 29 September 2017 (UTC) Caroline Lowry

Group Comments
First of all, great job on doing your outline and getting ahead in the drafting process. You have all made excellent contributions to the project. Make sure you are primarily posting in the group sandbox space, and not in the talk page. Also, make sure you are putting in all of your citations. I am 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. Remember, if you need any extra help come to mine or Dr. Benoit's office hours. Again, excellent job all of you! Mmaggi9 (talk) 18:21, 11 October 2017 (UTC) Melanie Maggio: TA for LIS 2000

Group Comments for the Draft
First I would suggest that you recreate your lead, and then move your current lead paragraph to a history section. In the history section I would also focus on ensuring that you are mainly focusing on the history of the digital divide. While your religion section is very interesting, it looks like it primarily belongs in the post for the Philippines article and not one for the digital divide. Your "Politics and Culture" section is a much better example of what you should be doing moving forward into your draft this week. Your "Education" section is also a good example. Make sure you finish your first draft this week, and please contact Dr. Benoit and I if you have any further questions.

Mmaggi9 (talk) 03:45, 17 October 2017 (UTC) Melanie Maggio: TA for LIS 2000

Philippines Peer Review
The lead paragraph sounds good but could be worded differently. I don't know if discussing social media is the best way to go about it in the beginning. I would focus more on the divide and the usage and knowledge of information and computers int he country rather than how many of them use social media. The history paragraph could be combined with the lead in my opinion to give the reader more of a background on the Digital Divide in the Philippines when they begin reading. The "History" paragraph should also focus more on the History of the Digital Divide rather than the history of the country itself and talking about the national bird and what not. The "Employment", "Politics and Culture", and "Education" paragraphs are all written well and sound great. The use of statistics makes it very "encyclopedia" like as well as the references given and facts used. I also think discussing the "rich versus poor" aspect of the country is a good way to explain why there is such a divide. Other than changing up the lead paragraph and history paragraph, everything looks great!

Kpc.nguyen (talk) 06:07, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

Peer Review
I like the sections and comprehensive outline. I think the history paragraph needs more information on the connection between Digital Divide and Philippines. The information in the employment paragraph is great but I think a few statistic references should be added to support employment and socioeconomic issues. The social media paragraphs of the lead section should be moved and added under culture section or a technology section. The ideas in education paragraph are good but it'd be better with percentages for the examples about adoption to technology. There are some type errors. I like the live stats reference and great job on summarizing ideas and presenting an overview.

Peer Review by Maddie DeLeo
In the lead section is it all one giant quote from that source? If so I think summarizing it into your own words might be better, I don’t think it is very “Wikipedia like” to just have one giant quote as the lead section. It is a good quote though! It would just be better in your own words. For the next section, History of Digital Divide in the Philippines, I think you should take out the “Digital Divide” part in the title and just have it as the “History of the Philippines” because that is what it seems like it is, rather than about the digital divide. I like the topic of employment but I think that the sentence “Once you lose you job, it becomes harder to provide for your family, and then it is just an all around struggle” may need to be rewritten so it sounds more official and academic like. I think a good idea for the Politics and Culture section would be to provide a link to the “SprintLink” that is mentioned, if there is one, so readers can know what that is if they don’t already. Also maybe for the “presidential election of Estrada” or just Estrada or the “Neitzenship” word you have used. Just suggestions! I’m not sure if they have Wikipedia articles for these topics. The education section is good! It’s going to need its sources mixed in like the other sections and the formatting doesn’t match but those are easily fixed! Overall I think this is a good article! MadelineDeLeo (talk) 16:39, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

Revision Summary
In my draft article, I was able to condense the title for the history section. My peers told me they felt that was best to change it to "History of the Philippines" vs. "History of the Digital Divide in the Philippines" because it focused more on the history IN the Philippines and not of the digital divide in the Philippines. I did the section on employment and I didn't read to make any change on that section except the sentence correction, in which I did reword/redo the entire sentence in hopes of it sounding better! I did summarize the lead and add a little "spice" to it instead of it just being one giant quote because that is one thing they recommended, too. I deleted the religion section because I felt religion was unrelated to the Digital Divide in the Philippines, it caused the draft to be off topic and it was hard to find info on.

Carolinelowry (talk) 23:45, 31 October 2017 (UTC) Caroline Lowry

Ty Glaze's Revision Summary
In my personal section ( Politics and Culture) I added wiki links for topics that needed better explaining. I didn't see any other comments on my section but adding the links. I also decided to rewrite the history section to better fit digital divide. I made it short but gave a couple facts to show when the Philippines actually gained internet access.

Tglaze2 (talk) 06:55, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

Peter Brooks's Revision Summary
In my section, which is education, I will fix some typo errors as well as insert my citations within the paragraph in order to fit the format of the other subjects in terms of the citations as well as try and find some more percentages in order to better portray how education is being handled in the Philippines.

Pbrook3 (talk) 05:18, 6 November 2017 (UTC)