User talk:Gpecenka

This is my talk page

Brief Bio
Gabriela English Secondary Education

poetry

 * mother
 * teacher and poet
 * committed suicide

Gpecenka (talk) 17:29, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

Welcome!
Hello, Gpecenka, and welcome to Wikipedia! My name is Adam and I work with the Wiki Education Foundation; I help support students who are editing as part of a class assignment.

I hope you enjoy editing here. If you haven't already done so, please check out the student training library, which introduces you to editing and Wikipedia's core principles. You may also want to check out the Teahouse, a community of Wikipedia editors dedicated to helping new users. Below are some resources to help you get started editing. If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to contact me on my talk page. Adam (Wiki Ed) (talk) 17:47, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

Rhetorical Analysis 2/11/2016
Darien, Illinois

Strengths: Weaknesses:
 * understandable
 * clear structure
 * balanced
 * neutral coverage
 * reliable sources
 * aspects of topic are missing
 * needs some more detailed facts

This article was created on October 18th, 2002. In it's early stages, this article was quite broad and general. There was an extreme lack of credible sources. Over time, the article was organized and changed, sourcer were added, as well as helpful external links. The last edit made was on December 27th, 2015. So the page has been inactive for a few months. Although, before that, this page had a lot of activity.

Editors used this page, quite a lot for the subject of the article. Most edits that were made, were due to adding detail or changing it, and adding more credible sources. The conversation was very one way, there was not much back and forth conversation. I saw mostly the same editors on the history page.

I edited the popular culture section. It was minor edit, adding a few words to create a better sentence.

Central Principles of Wikipedia; Critique of an Article 2/16/2016
The article Cognitive Surplus is referenced with appropriate and reliable sources. It is well organized and relevant to the book by Clay Shirky. Nothing was distracting to me or inappropriate to the subject. The article is very neutral and highlights facts that are very relevant to the topic. The information, is not argumentative, but simply restates the facts that are presented in Shirky's novel. I wish the Critical Reception section was more detailed with reliable sources and arguments on both sides that emphasize the value of Shirky's ideas.