User talk:Nhuffman/sandbox

Peer Review: Digital Literacy
Is the article neutral? Are there any claims, or frames, that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? This article is neutral, and draws information from reliable sources to make its claims. The language used throughout the article indicates that there is no viewpoint being taken, with the definitions coming from properly cited sources. The definition for digital literacy is stated as a fact rather than getting distorted by a personal point of view.

Is any information out of date? Is anything missing that should be added? There are sources that are cited from 2001, 2007, 2008,and 2009. In terms of being outdated, these sources are not from too long ago, but it should also be kept in mind that things change quickly on the internet and need to be reevaluated periodically. The concept of digital literacy is relatively new, but I would recommend double checking that the information drawn from these sources is still viable.

Check a few citations. Do the links work? Does the source support the claims in the article? The citations that I clicked on led me to the sites indicated by the links. The sources I chose to click on pertained to digital literacy as they mentioned subjects such as Kairos, the future of digital literacy and social media, and audiences of web communities. However, a source I clicked on talked about access to digital literacy in South Africa, which may not be information that is necessary in the article (doi:10.2989/16073614.2011.633365).

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? There are a large amount of contributions to the talk page of this article, as it is recognized that it needs to be updated. The conversations pertain to an updated definition of digital literacy, the misleading confusion with computer literacy, and a need for up-to-date references. These contributions are all helpful and the Wikipedia community is aware that this article needs to be updated.

Gdeluca33 (talk) 17:42, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

Peer Review: Digital Literacy
1. The article is really thorough and does a good job of breaking down the larger sections into manageable amounts of information. The article also does a lot of work to help define Digital Literacy, and keep away from confusion that the reader may have which is helpful. The first sentence/paragraph is an especially good way to start out the article. 2. In terms of changes, I think the first section is a little lengthy. It's broken up into paragraphs but it doesn't have independent captions, so it just comes across as a little overwhelming. 3. I think the article is really good, so I would say that the biggest edit is the first section. 4. I definitely think that the kairos article needs this sort of structure and thoroughness. 5. Good structure, sources, and tone. Hanhim7 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 01:24, 4 March 2018 (UTC)