User talk:Panaitescu96

Hello, my name is Andrea and I am a senior and look forward to taking this class.

Welcome!
Hello, Panaitescu96, and welcome to Wikipedia! My name is Shalor 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. Shalor (Wiki Ed) (talk) 15:42, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

Article Evaluation
The Wiki article on the Digital Divide kept true to the topic but personally, I think it expanded into some irrelevant wording. For example, in the last paragraph of the section of, “Reasons and correlating variables”, the author kept talking about how every reason can be seen from different angles before getting to the point. Then the article strayed back to the economic gap in the US and its effect on the Digital Divide but cited different articles but didn’t explain why they were significant.

The article, Digital divide in Canada, is well written and doesn’t overflow with unnecessary information. It also had a good introduction that made me want to keep reading without getting distracted, for the most part.

The article on the Digital Divide mostly focused on the economic factor of the Digital Divide versus expanding on location like the Digital divide in Canada article did. Clearly, the author believed that the main factor to the digital divide is mainly based on a family’s wealth.

The article, Digital divide in Canada is neutral and covers what we need to know, for the most part.

In the Infrastructure section, the graph already presented didn’t need to be thoroughly written and explained because the graph is presented anyway, and that section was just a bunch of numbers and words that I wasn’t interested in, nor did I know what anything meant.

The viewpoint on a family’s wealth was underrepresented in, Digital Divide in Canada, as opposed to the Digital divide article that focused too much on it.

The citations of the article, Digital Divide, work. But I am unsure why there are 8 different citations at the beginning of the topic, “ Reasons and correlating variables”, how do can all of the 8 cites focus on that first sentence? Maybe, they were placed wrong?

The citation for, Digital divide in Canada, do work and relate to the topic explained by the author.

Most information comes from other related written articles, in both, the digital divide, and the digital divide in Canada. In the Digital Divide wiki page, there were a few sources, 38 & 39, which seem biased because they target women and Latinos.

Information in, Digital divide in Canada, came from reliable sources such as government websites, knowledgeable authors, and actual data.

Sources Pretty much varied from the late 1990s to 2014, in the Digital Divide page. Personally, I think Wiki articles should be more fact-based with the present, so there should be some updating to this page.

Sources for the Digital divide in Canada was a lot more present and ranged from 2001-2016. This proves that information is more up to date and reliable.

The digital divide article, needed links modified. There is a section about how to add more which is clear that there is missing information. The page also didn’t introduce the topic to well in the beginning.

The article, Digital divide, is rated of high importance and is a part of a WikiProject.

The article, Digital divide in Canada, is rated as C-Class and has been rated of Mid-Importance, and is part of the WikiProject Canada.

Wikipedia discusses the digital divide in more of a technical form, versus covering background information, history, present information, and ongoing testing for the topic.

I think the Digital divide in Canada page is written better, covering the past, the present and the future, as well as, keeping the information up to date.

Overall, I think both of these articles were good sources to evaluate for our own knowledge of knowing the difference of a well written Wiki page, versus an unwell written Wiki page. I learned a lot by evaluating these articles and will keep in mind my own evaluations on these articles for when I begin to write an article.

Panaitescu96 (talk) 01:24, 18 September 2017 (UTC) Andrea Panaitescu, group C.