User talk:Carpet49/sandbox

--Carpet49 (talk) 20:39, 14 November 2021 (UTC)1. https://ecoversities.org/ecoversity/swaraj-university/

This website represents a number of universities and schools around the globe which focus on using unusual or alterative teaching methods. It provides a summary of basic information about the school and methods used. However, this information is mainly taken from the website of the university so doesnt provide massive amounts of information on top of that. Additionally as it is advertising the school it will be showing it in an overly positive light.

2. https://www.swarajuniversity.org/

This is the website for the university. This makes it incredibly useful because it contains a massive amount of information about the university. It is not referenced but as it is a primary source this is less important as we know the information is coming from a knowledgeable place. The downside of this source is that as it coming directly from the university it may try to paint it in an overly positive light therefore making it biased.

3. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2gesJTwkga0&t=216s

This is a Ted talk from the founder of the Swaraj university. This is helpful as in it she explains her beliefs about what university should comprise of and the type of curriculum and assessments she believes it will involve. This gives me background into the university and the goals that the university has. However this is also going to be a biased source as it can contain her opinion.

4. http://www.normanjackson.co.uk/uploads/1/0/8/4/10842717/swaraj_final.pdf

This source was written by a teacher at the Swaraj university meaning it has similar advantages, disadvantages and biases as the TED talk and the university websites. It is useful because it details the specifics of the teaching methods and the ideas behind them but it is important to member the biased viewpoint it is being written from when talking about the benefits of these methods.

5. https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Jan-Visser-4/publication/259673533_Swaraj_University_Reflections_on_an_experience/links/0046352d4344b8afbb000000/Swaraj-University-Reflections-on-an-experience.pdf

This source differs from the previous sources because it is written from an outsider viewpoints. It covers similar stuff to the other sources; methods, justifications etc, but shows a more balanced view on the impacts of this style of schooling. This is useful as it allows me to check the validity of previous claims and ensure my article remains free from bias.

6. https://books.google.co.uk/books?hl=en&lr=&id=4i1RDwAAQBAJ&oi=fnd&pg=PA205&dq=swaraj+university&ots=gF2XpFvzrB&sig=GgUxfc_VKrB0lEvExenYfj_yiIo&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q=swaraj%20university&f=false

This book is an extremely useful source as it provides an overview of a number of different alternatives universities with one chapter focusing on Swaraj University. This gives it a well rounded insight. It is also fairly recent, being published in 2018 making it useful for my article.

7. https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.5822/978-1-61091-843-5_17

The website for the university will be the most useful in writing the Wikipedia article. This is because it provides the largely factual information which Wikipedia is known for. However it will be important that i use the other sources as well to ensure that the article is well balanced and avoids bias as far as possible.

Peer Feedback: I appreciate how visually appealing the article is, from the images used to the hyperlinks involved. This allows the reader to digest the topic in a much easier manner, with the addition of hyperlinks allowing the reader to easily explore different parts of the article that are not fully expanded upon by linking another article or website for those who may want further knowledge. To improve on this article, I would suggest that a wider variety of references could be used, as many of the reference come from the 'Swaraj University' website. As a result, despite the extremely useful information involved and referenced, the article begins to feels like almost like an emulation or imitation of the official university website. From an immersive perspective, many of the sentences used allows the reader to consume the information easier since they are short, brief and to the point. However, it means that some aspects of the article are only mentioned on a surface level, which may not be enough for those who want to further immerse themselves on this topic, in which I would suggest expanding on certain parts of the article a little more, to perhaps fulfil an additional level of depth. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AO159 (talk • contribs) 01:03, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

Peer Feedback I did
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Madsal#Peer_Review (second one) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:315da

Peer Review
Positives: introductory sentence states article topic concisely and accurately in a single sentence context is good – all information included is also present in the body of the article clear organisation of headings and subheadings strong explanation of the subject – clear grasp of issues shown through the structure as well as context writing for an audience is good grammatically correct – short sentences – written in plain English using the active tense throughout the level of detail is ideally suited to the type of article being edited the inclusion of WikiLinks gives a useful further reading the writing is a pleasure to read. point of view is good – key points are provided using neutral language diverse sources from multiple perspectives careful explanation of any contentious matters concerning the article topic authors from the country context are cited alongside others images deepen readers’ understanding of the topic and are visually meaningful – captions are clear and concise citations are good – every statement is supported by a reference where required sources are thoughtfully selected – high quality and diverse authors from the country context are cited open-access sources are used where possible all references are complete

Improvements: the lead section should summarise all major points in the article e.g. the first section is about… the second section is about… etc. curation of the further reading and external links sections Yellow1830 (talk) 16:56, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

Response to Peer Feedback
Positives: introductory sentence states article topic concisely and accurately in a single sentence context is good – all information included is also present in the body of the article clear organisation of headings and subheadings strong explanation of the subject – clear grasp of issues shown through the structure as well as context writing for an audience is good grammatically correct – short sentences – written in plain English using the active tense throughout the level of detail is ideally suited to the type of article being edited the inclusion of WikiLinks gives a useful further reading the writing is a pleasure to read. point of view is good – key points are provided using neutral language diverse sources from multiple perspectives careful explanation of any contentious matters concerning the article topic authors from the country context are cited alongside others images deepen readers’ understanding of the topic and are visually meaningful – captions are clear and concise citations are good – every statement is supported by a reference where required sources are thoughtfully selected – high quality and diverse authors from the country context are cited open-access sources are used where possible all references are complete

Improvements: the lead section should summarise all major points in the article e.g. the first section is about… the second section is about… etc. curation of the further reading and external links sections Yellow1830 (talk) 16:56, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

Thankyou so much for all the positive feedback. In regards to the suggested improvements i will not be implementing the formulaic approach sugegsted in the first paragraph as i feel it will detract from the flow of the article. I will add some further reading sections and look at my eternal links — Preceding unsigned comment added by Carpet49 (talk • contribs) 13:16, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

Peer Feedback: I appreciate how visually appealing the article is, from the images used to the hyperlinks involved. This allows the reader to digest the topic in a much easier manner, with the addition of hyperlinks allowing the reader to easily explore different parts of the article that are not fully expanded upon by linking another article or website for those who may want further knowledge. To improve on this article, I would suggest that a wider variety of references could be used, as many of the reference come from the 'Swaraj University' website. As a result, despite the extremely useful information involved and referenced, the article begins to feels like almost like an emulation or imitation of the official university website. From an immersive perspective, many of the sentences used allows the reader to consume the information easier since they are short, brief and to the point. However, it means that some aspects of the article are only mentioned on a surface level, which may not be enough for those who want to further immerse themselves on this topic, in which I would suggest expanding on certain parts of the article a little more, to perhaps fulfil an additional level of depth. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AO159 (talk • contribs) 01:03, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

From this peer feedback i will try to look at adding more references from a wider variety of sources to help create a more well rounded article. I willlook at going into more detail in certain sections — Preceding unsigned comment added by Carpet49 (talk • contribs) 13:21, 6 December 2021 (UTC)