User talk:Cperezdavid

• Which article are you reviewing? Toll Roads in Central Texas • Does the lead section summarize the article’s key points? What are the key points of the article, as you understand them? The introduction states the purpose of toll road and about where the privatized idea of the toll road came from. Later through the article the author goes on to talk about the pros and cons of the toll roads in central Texas. • Is the article’s structure clear? Does the group use/plan to use heading and subheadings, images and diagrams at appropriate places? I like the structure and the fact that the second heading was pros and cons. The first section is really clear and gave me a clear picture of what the article was going to be about. There are no images or diagrams. • How well balanced is the coverage? For instance, are the key elements given equal treatment? Are sections overly long or short in proportion to their importance? The coverage is balanced in the two headings. The only suggestion I have is maybe expanding on the pros and cons and maybe making each their own heading. • Is the language appropriate? Do authors use generalized language such as “some” or “many”? Could these references be replaced with fact? For what they have, the language is good and easy to understand. • Does the article contain unsourced opinions or value statements? No all statements are sourced and there aren’t any biased values in the article. • How reliable are the references? Does the article have enough/too few references? Why? For what there is all the references are reliable and reachable. • Based on both the progress report and the articles current appearance to what it looked like when the group began working on it, how would you rate the progress made so far? 2 • What do you like most about what the group has done to the article so far? Why? I really enjoy the topic from the start. Things like this hit home for me more because it is something that affects me each and every day because of the fact that I use the toll roads. And I like to read about the pros and cons, because honestly, I have a need for speed and love being able to fly down the highway. • What are two improvements you think the article needs that were not discussed in the group’s presentation? I think the article needs more pros and cons. • How would such improvements contribute to the articles quality? This would improve the articles quality because it would expand on more issues the toll roads cause and other reasons people love toll roads. • Do you have any additional comments or suggestions for the author? I like what you have. It is a good start. (Likegoldfish (talk) 06:48, 1 December 2014 (UTC))

Social Media and Public Administration
1. “This article will discus how social media is using in the public sector.” I would exclude this sentence from the page and possibly place a header such as, What is Social Media, and proceed with the definition. 2. I would also create links Facebook, Twitter, LinkedIn, Pinterest, etc… 3. Social media being the main source many officials use to reach the maximum amount of people in the shortest amount of time. People sharing the information to their “friends” or “followers” is the most efficient way to spread information. – This I would use as a pro (could place in section titled pros if more than one pro, or pros/cons section) of social media and to help the article have a neutral stand point. 4. The only problem with the ability to share information is anyone can do it thus leads to the biggest problem with social media false information is just as easily shared as the true information, the lack of fact checking skills is also what kills the separation between the true and the false information – could place this in the con section. 5. The fundraising section could be titled ==Effects of Social Media on Fundraising== I would also omit this information: Fundraising is defined as the organized activity or an instance of soliciting money or pledges, as for charitable organization or political campaigns. www.thefreedictionary.com Fundraising can also be defined as the process of soliciting and gathering voluntary contributions of money or other resources, by requesting donations from individuals, businesses, charitable foundations, or governmental agencies. Traditionally, fundraising consisted mostly of asking for donations on the street or at people’s doors, and this is experiencing very strong growth in the form of face-to-face fundraising, but new forms of fundraising such as online fundraising have emerged in recent years. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fundraising 6. Evens in the Community, this section is questionable to me for the fact that I don’t think there is much relevance. It could be useful if there were sources providing proof or evidence to support such theory. In my opinion I would do away with this section. 7. In the Promoting Organizations section, it would be useful to use examples of how social media is used to “Get out the Vote”, promote the “Government Healthcare Program” with verifiable sources and statistics of the use of people getting informed about such programs through the use of social media. 8. The Campaigning section could be used as a pro again using verifiable sources for evidence, statistics on how much money is spent on campaigning through social media and its effectiveness. There could also be pros and cons to this if ou choose to leave this as its own section.

Peer Review: • The article reviewed was Social Media in Public Administration. • There is no lead section/summary at the beginning of the article stating the key points. I would reorganize the article and summarize each listed section that will be used. • The coverage could be well balanced if there were soures and evidence to support facts/theories. The sections listed were given equal treatment but some were repetitive and could be omitted. • I believe there could be more facts used from valid sources. I didn’t see any generalized language for the most part. • The article does contain many unsourced opinions and statements. • There are too few references and could help boost the integrity and evidence if there were valid sources used and examples. • I would rate the progress as a 2 for the fact that the article could use some re-organization, links, and credible sources. • I think the topic is great and would like to know more facts about how social media impacts public administration, whether it be from campaigning to fundraising; there is a lot good issues within that could be used as supporting evidence. • I would simply say through the use of more examples from credible sources in the article that it would boost its topic and make it go from a 2 to a 10. Again I think it is a great topic but I would like to see more verifiable evidence.

Cperezdavid (talk) 00:35, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

Peer Review
1.	“This article will discus how social media is using in the public sector.” I would exclude this sentence from the page and possibly place a header such as, What is Social Media, and proceed with the definition. 2.	I would also create links Facebook, Twitter, LinkedIn, Pinterest, etc… 3.	Social media being the main source many officials use to reach the maximum amount of people in the shortest amount of time. People sharing the information to their “friends” or “followers” is the most efficient way to spread information. – This I would use as a pro (could place in section titled pros if more than one pro, or pros/cons section) of social media and to help the article have a neutral stand point. 4.	The only problem with the ability to share information is anyone can do it thus leads to the biggest problem with social media false information is just as easily shared as the true information, the lack of fact checking skills is also what kills the separation between the true and the false information – could place this in the con section. 5.	The fundraising section could be titled ==Effects of Social Media on Fundraising== I would also omit this information: Fundraising is defined as the organized activity or an instance of soliciting money or pledges, as for charitable organization or political campaigns. www.thefreedictionary.com Fundraising can also be defined as the process of soliciting and gathering voluntary contributions of money or other resources, by requesting donations from individuals, businesses, charitable foundations, or governmental agencies. Traditionally, fundraising consisted mostly of asking for donations on the street or at people’s doors, and this is experiencing very strong growth in the form of face-to-face fundraising, but new forms of fundraising such as online fundraising have emerged in recent years. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fundraising 6.	Evens in the Community, this section is questionable to me for the fact that I don’t think there is much relevance. It could be useful if there were sources providing proof or evidence to support such theory. In my opinion I would do away with this section. 7.	In the Promoting Organizations section, it would be useful to use examples of how social media is used to “Get out the Vote”, promote the “Government Healthcare Program” with verifiable sources and statistics of the use of people getting informed about such programs through the use of social media. 8.	The Campaigning section could be used as a pro again using verifiable sources for evidence, statistics on how much money is spent on campaigning through social media and its effectiveness. There could also be pros and cons to this if ou choose to leave this as its own section.

Peer Review: •	The article reviewed was Social Media in Public Administration. •	There is no lead section/summary at the beginning of the article stating the key points. I would reorganize the article and summarize each listed section that will be used. •	The coverage could be well balanced if there were soures and evidence to support facts/theories. The sections listed were given equal treatment but some were repetitive and could be omitted. •	I believe there could be more facts used from valid sources. I didn’t see any generalized language for the most part. •	The article does contain many unsourced opinions and statements. •	There are too few references and could help boost the integrity and evidence if there were valid sources used and examples. •	I would rate the progress as a 2 for the fact that the article could use some re-organization, links, and credible sources. •	I think the topic is great and would like to know more facts about how social media impacts public administration, whether it be from campaigning to fundraising; there is a lot good issues within that could be used as supporting evidence. •	I would simply say through the use of more examples from credible sources in the article that it would boost its topic and make it go from a 2 to a 10. Again I think it is a great topic but I would like to see more verifiable evidence.

Cperezdavid (talk) 00:32, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

Peer Review
• Which article are you reviewing? Toll Roads in Central Texas • Does the lead section summarize the article’s key points? What are the key points of the article, as you understand them? The intro is really simple, I think you could expand on it more, maybe even a broad definition of a toll road for people who have no idea what it is. I like the rest of it though, especially the pro's and con's. • Is the article’s structure clear? Does the group use/plan to use heading and subheadings, images and diagrams at appropriate places? The structure was very clear, but could be expanded upon for sure. Also adding images would be very well. I saw other people who commented also liked the pro's and con's section. One part that's not clear though is the links at the top of the page that helps navigate the page. There's more links than there is information! • How well balanced is the coverage? For instance, are the key elements given equal treatment? Are sections overly long or short in proportion to their importance? I think it's well balanced, but could have more information on toll roads. Maybe a little bit of history, such as the first toll roads that were outside of Texas. • Is the language appropriate? Do authors use generalized language such as “some” or “many”? Could these references be replaced with fact? Extremely easy to understand. I like the less-is-more style that you've used, that said, I think you could add more, but in the same style. • Does the article contain unsourced opinions or value statements? It is well sourced, and from unbiased sources such as the Texas Tribune. One thing you could do is add some opinions, though, that are from competing sides. List a source that biased for, and against it, to get a better understanding of the issue. • How reliable are the references? Does the article have enough/too few references? Why? As stated above, the sources are good, and well placed. While there aren't too few references at this point, I'd like to see more information that's referenced, such as the opinion pieces that might fall on different political lines. • Based on both the progress report and the articles current appearance to what it looked like when the group began working on it, how would you rate the progress made so far? It looks good to me, but I think you could add more, and an image would really spruce it up. Maybe 2 images, one with a toll road, and one without, to show the difference. • What do you like most about what the group has done to the article so far? Why? It's easy to read, and that's my favorite part. You haven't added unnecessary information, or just filler. Also the history of how it started was well placed and interesting. Many people will open the article and read the first few lines to see if it's interesting, and easy to read, and is sourced. If all of these are done(which you have) then they won't look for another source immediately, so well done there. • What are two improvements you think the article needs that were not discussed in the group’s presentation? One thing you could add is class warfare. Does this turn into a class thing? If you have money you get places faster? How does it benefit the rich or poor. Another thing I'd be interested to know is how it affects wrecks. Are there more or less? Because as Toll Roads are being built, wrecks per year still increase. • How would such improvements contribute to the articles quality? It would give more information, and this is also intersting material to read. Maybe add a chart with statistics of some kind, because a lot of people respond well to data and hard facts. • Do you have any additional comments or suggestions for the author? So far it looks good. In the pro's and con's section I think you should add how much money actually goes back to Texas. I've heard that the toll roads actually negatively impact the economy. Also, if we pay taxes to improve our roads, why do we have business' making millions of dollars with these toll roads. This seems fishy, especially since Texas has a terrible reputation for adding fee's that end up being more expensive than if taxes were raised. Good article choice, and good work. It could use more info, but works as is.

JonBorazjani (talk) 22:57, 1 December 2014 (UTC)