User talk:Michael paul72/sandbox

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 full of great information and a plethora of sources. It provides an extremely detailed look into cyborgs and cyborg data mining and has clearly been well-researched. The beginning of the article makes the important distinction between cyborgs and androids, which many people may think are the same thing. The article also ties in a lot of different concepts directly related to the practice of cyborg data mining, which demonstrates a good understanding of how cyborg data mining fits into the wider socio-technical assemblage.

'''What changes would you suggest the author apply to the article? Why would those changes be an improvement?''' While the detail in the article is great, it is also a little heavy in certain areas where it does not have to be. Due to the sub-sections being so well-researched and citation heavy, they often read as mini-Wikipedia pages for the sub-section (E.g. Data Brokers) as opposed to a sub-section of Cyborg Data Mining. Furthermore, the article could be improved by adding a few more cyborg related sources. A good place to look for sources would be in Steve Mann (University of Toronto)'s work, as Steve Mann has conducted fascinating and relevant research in the area of cyborgs, wearable computing and cyborg law along with Ian Kerr from the University of Ottawa. By narrowing the focus down to cyborgs and the data mining within this area, this will help the article read as more focused and be easier for the reader to understand.

What's the most important thing the author could do to improve the article? Besides narrowing the scope, the most important thing the author could do would to read over the article and change some of the wording. A lot of the sentences read like an argumentative academic paper and do not have the "style" typically associated with an encyclopedia. Gooddigitalcitizen (talk) 01:06, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

Donato's Peer Review
The article draft on cyborg datamining follows an understandable structure, and the major sections likely do have a place in the final copy of the article. There were however some improvements that could be made to the content of the article.

In terms of the lead, there is a succinct description of Cyborgs that leads to a clear understanding of the definition of the term. The information provided gives a good overview of the current status of Cyborgs as a technology, however the second paragraph appears to push a claim of the prevalence of cybernetics in the future without any indication of why this is true (is there a survey that claims so, or a study done that identifies people with cybernetics?). It also seems to be presenting an argument that although the technology is going to be prevalent, there are issues x,y,z to be concerned about. This could be framed in a different way that makes it more descriptive of what literature identifies as issues that cyborgs face, rather than presenting it as something that is apparent from another source, which comes off as a conclusion being made by the writer.

The sections of the draft are all definitely relevant to discussion on cyborg data, however some focus begins to be lost part way through. The first section, examples of cyborgs, is a great introduction to normalizing the reader with examples to better understand how cybernetics operate and assist in human life. The following sections on legislation however seem to lose focus. There is a lot of descriptions of related topics, such as exhaust data, big data, and data sovereignty, however these are not the topics of the article being written. A better approach may be to simply mention quickly what these topics are in relation to cyborg data mining, while providing a Wikipedia hyperlink for someone who may not fully understand the concept to continue their exploration.

Similarly, the section on data brokers is largely moving away from the topic focus. While this is definitely a major component in cyborg data mining, large descriptions of that industry and the major players who inhabit it is better left to the data broker article itself. An alternate approach could be more descriptive of current cyborg related mining practices and players involved specifically in this practice, rather than presenting the broad concept of issues in data brokers and using this as a cause of concern for digitally linked cyborgs. This section also seems to be losing a sense of neutrality; it feels as if it is using sourced to present a negative picture of data broker firms while arguing why this is an issue for cyborgs, which moves away from an objective, descriptive focus of a wiki article.

The sources used are abundant and clear, however some spots could use as citation. This may be due to the fact that the draft is not completely formatted for wikipedia at this stage, and this is understandable. Other than that, the sources noted are from a wide range of reports, studies, and journals, which provides a strong overview of the topic.

Overall, the article is a great start but could use focusing towards the topic of cyborg mining itself. There is a good balanced between description of cyborgs, their capacity to develop data, and data brokers, however tying in the broader concept of cyborg data mining as the main focus could make the article more nuanced and informative to a reader. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Donatozleone (talk • contribs) 23:35, 8 November 2017 (UTC)