User talk:Kmencyclopedia/sandbox

Article Evaluation Data Mining
The following is an article evaluation of the Wikipedia article for Data Mining

Is everything in the article relevant to the article topic? Is there anything that distracted you?

Is the article neutral? Are there any claims, or frames, that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?

Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?

Check a few citations. Do the links work? Does the source support the claims in the article?

Is each fact referenced with an appropriate, reliable reference? Where does the information come from? Are these neutral sources? If biased, is that bias noted?

Is any information out of date? Is anything missing that could be added?

Check out the Talk page of the article. What kinds of conversations, if any, are going on behind the scenes about how to represent this topic?

How is the article rated? Is it a part of any WikiProjects?

How does the way Wikipedia discusses this topic differ from the way we've talked about it in class?

Kmencyclopedia (talk) 03:23, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

Liv's Peer Review
'''What does the article do well? Is there anything from your review that impressed you?''' Any turn of phrase that described the subject in a clear way? The article is about an interesting topic and from the skeleton, looks like it will cover a wide spectrum of issues within Data Refuge. The article also has good sources, especially PPEH lab. The links work properly and the sources are properly cited. The style of writing is Wikipedia-like.

What changes would you suggest the author apply to the article? The main changes I would suggest are to add some links to other Wikipedia pages on terms such as PDF, oral history and the organizations mentioned. Furthermore, it may be helpful to add headers such as "History of Data Refuge" to further organize the article. Lastly, I would expand the article to potentially include any place-specific data refuge projects that are going on (if any).

What's the most important thing the author could do to improve the article? The most important change would be to add links and content to the article as well as more sources. Gooddigitalcitizen (talk) 03:25, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ Karin's Peer Review

I am sorry for getting this to you so late. Your article looks fantastic! I noted one spelling error that I changed. In the second paragraph of your Data Refuge section, I changed "...sustainable way on archiving..." to "...sustainable way of archiving..." I also added a capital W to the first main concern to keep it consistent with the other listed concerns, but I am not sure if that is correct. It might be worth making this list bulleted to get around this problem.

'''What does the article do well? Is there anything from your review that impressed you? Any turn of phrase that described the subject in a clear way?''' Your article looks and sounds well researched and unbiased. Just the facts. Way to go!! I was also impressed by your list of sources. You obviously put a lot of effort into this entry.

'''What changes would you suggest the author apply to the article? Why would those changes be an improvement?''' I am not sure of this is necessary, but may be worth looking into...you have several lists in your article (the 5 main concerns, supporters of daata refuge, and the ways that stories are collected), and they are cited, but they are not inside quotation marks. Since your lists match those from your sources (and really, how can they not?), you may want to consider using quotations just to be on the safe side.

What's the most important thing the author could do to improve the article? I think looking into the above mentioned quotes is the only cause for concern in your article.

'''Is everything in the article relevant to the article topic? Is there anything that distracted you?''' Not at all. Everything is relevant and necessary.

'''Is the article neutral? Are there any claims, or frames, that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?''' I think you have doen a good job of presenting this information neutrally, particularly as it seems like something that could easily be argued for or against. I wasn't aware of any instances where you indicated your feelings about the issue.

'''Check the citations. Do the links work? Does the source support the claims in the article?''' All of your links work and go to the appropriate sources. A few of them go to the same page. Is it worth using the page source just once?

'''Is each fact supported by an appropriate, reliable reference? Where does the information come from? Are these neutral sources? If biased, is that bias noted?''' You cited everything! Exactly as it should be for Wikipedia

'''Is any information out of date? Is anything missing that should be added?''' You seem to have hit on all of the necessary information, and any more depth may border on bias, in my opinion. All info is up to date.

Concluding thoughts Just have a look into quoting those lists. Other than that, you have a super article here. Congratulations!! Undergradmom76 (talk) 15:09, 21 November 2017 (UTC)