User talk:Madison hadden/sandbox

Group Comments First of all, excellent job on beginning the lead and source list for your project. However, at this point in the class you should have a working outline by now. I would suggest going forward that each of you place your name next to the section on which you plan to be working. You are definitely ahead as you begin work on your draft, so once you get a working outline this should only get easier. I am including a link to the Digital Divide in South Africa page. This is a good example of about how much you should be writing for each section, though obviously your sections will likely not be identical to those on the South African Page. [|Digital Divide in South Africa] Remember, if you need any extra help please come to mine or Dr. Benoit's office hours. Again, excellent work on the beginning of your draft. Mmaggi9 (talk) 17:04, 11 October 2017 (UTC)Melanie Maggio: TA for LIS 2000

Group Comments for the Draft
One recommendation as you move forward is that you get working section titles as an outline. This will help you going forward, as this week you need to finish the first draft of your article. As to your current lead, this is a great start. You should shorten it a bit, and use some of the other information elsewhere. Your lead should include mostly the information from your second paragraph, with a bit from the first thrown in. Please contact Dr. Benoit or myself if you have any questions.

Mmaggi9 (talk) 02:33, 17 October 2017 (UTC) Melanie Maggio: TA for LIS 2000

Additional Comments
Looking at things on Monday morning, it looks like the entire group is discussing on Moodle, and I am looking forward to their contributions to the page. Is the Contributing Factors (with age, education, etc. listed) supposed to be a section heading? Also, make sure that you are logged in when you make edits or else we cannot see who made the changes. Right now, for example, I know there were several changes made, but I only have a general IP address rather than a user name to contribute them to. Eabenoit (talk) 14:59, 23 October 2017 (UTC)eabenoit

Review- Jordan Aliers
You guys have a great draft working!  A couple things I noticed:

1. I would double check your grammar and punctuation (making sure commas and periods are where they need to be). A good way to do this is to read out loud what you've written and adjust your writing to reflect how the content sounds when spoken. I made a few minor changes such as rewording one or two words and placing punctuation in proper places, however I did this briefly so feel free to continue fine-tuning it.

2. Your lead has some great, but it seems a bit lengthy. I think that your group would benefit greatly from shaving down your lead section to just the bare basics, and then adding the information you removed from your lead into your following sections. It would add some real content and length to your outlined sections while tightening up your introduction to the topic in order to be more concise.

3. Your cited sources look pretty good, but I do think the article could benefit with more. Some of the statements made in your article make complete sense to anyone with a brain so one might think they don't need to be completely backed up with evidence. However, every conclusion or attribution has to come from a reputable source, even if it's common sense. Otherwise, it borderlines opinion.

4. Lastly, you have two sections on Minitel. I think adding the first section to the second section (content and location) would make more sense and contribute to an easier-to-follow article.

Overall, these are all minor things. It seems like y'all are doing great! There's some really good points/information here and I think your team is meshing well together in your writing styles!

Jmaliers (talk) 15:44, 25 October 2017 (UTC)Jordan

Peer Review-Sydnie Fast
I really enjoyed the article and only have a few things to say!

I think y'all did a great job with the lead and y'all had a lot of useful information. There might have been a little too much information in the lead and you could have combined sections.

In the age category if there are percentages for under thirty, from thirty to fifty-nine, and over fifty nine I would add that onto y'all's age section.

There were two sections on Minitel which seems a little redundant but regardless it was very informative. If you could have a different title for one of the sections or combine the two would get rid of the problem.

Over all I think y'all did an amazing job and I think this could serve as a very reliable Wikipedia article.

Response to Peer Reviews
First of all, thank you both so much for your feedback and opinions! It can be hard to catch things when you've been looking at it so closely for so long! I definitely see what you guys are saying about the lead; it definitely needs to be cut back some. I think we talk a little too much about the digital divide in general when our focus should be solemnly the digital divide within our nation. I think I might just add a wikilink to the Digital Divide page and cut most of that out. You both mentioned that there are two sections on the Minitel System and I completely missed that. I'm going to discuss it with my group members and see where everyone thinks it fits best and we'll combine them under one category or the other. I'll definitely be sure to check for grammatical errors before we begin moving it from the talk page! Again, thanks for this constructive feedback, it's been really helpful.Madison hadden (talk) 16:48, 5 November 2017 (UTC)Madison Hadden

Response to Peer Review
Thanks for all the feedback! I took your advice regarding the lead section and the Mintel section:

First, I took my paragraph out of the lead, and attached it to my "Internet Accessibility" section under the header. It serves more as in introduction now to this portion of the Wiki. I edited it to be more brief and summarized of the bulleted topics within the section.

Second, I read the two Mintier sections and decided that it fit better under Madison's section. We basically had the same content, but I had a few extra points. So I decided to incorporate my points into her section. Hopefully it flows, but if not I am open to edit. I trust Madison's discretion since I just added some new points into her hard work!

Third, I cleaned up some grammatical errors. I will continue to work on this and my academic writing. This is important, since others may use this website as a reference in the future.

(E.Jee) 11/5/17 9:03PM — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:8807:304:3400:1575:9AB2:64F7:27F4 (talk) 03:03, 6 November 2017 (UTC)