User talk:Shrino/sandbox

Whats up Shrin.--Wyatthgrauman (talk) 23:09, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

This article editing of Open Government Initiative is very solid in terms of its content. The editing provides many historical backgrounds examples that involved OGD. The article interestingly describes both Open Government Data Movement and the Right to Information Movement, which I thought the author can go into more details to describe the similarities and differences between the two. The article can go into more depth in terms of the economical and social effects of OGD on society. Another thing that might be improved is that for the similar projects section, there is room to expand on each example from each country. Overall, this author did a great job writing a first draft that comprehensively captured multiple aspects of Open Government Initiative.Jameswang323 (talk) 18:36, 11 October 2019 (UTC)James Wang

Feedback on Article from Melissa Wang
The organization of your Open Government Initiative was very efficient and informative. I appreciate the number of credible sources you were able to effectively embed and incorporate into the new article. Not only that, I think you did a very good job of including more sub-headings on topics that were not even brushed upon in the original stub since there were only two short paragraphs explaining what the Open Government Initiative was. After reading your contributions, I got a better understanding of what the project entailed and how it was brought about by President Obama. I think one part of this that was a significant improvement compared to the previous article was how much more contemporary information you provided. I would say, I think the similar projects section was not the most necessary thing to include for this topic since you could have simply linked the Wikipedia pages into the Open Government Initiative. Maybe you could look into how other countries are trying to practice governmental transparency too? It's up to you. Great job otherwise! Melissawwang (talk) 06:14, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

Peer Review by Erika Badalyan 10/15/19
Hey Shrin,

great job on submitting a well-written article. It's really good and I love the way you write! All of these issues I have highlighted are minor, and I only point them out because I want to see this article flourish.

I really enjoyed the sections you chose for your article. I thought they were unique and I honestly haven't come across sections like the ones you chose before. In particular, the "Modern Manifestations" section. Perhaps you meant "Implementations"?

In the "Modern Manifestations" section, I found all your paragraphs to to be very strong. Aside from select conversational phrases you could omit from the first paragraph — "In the same vein" and "one such company" and "draw influence from" and "add their own thoughts" — this was a great section.

I would take more considerable care into making the article more unbiased. At the moment, some language you use implies that you feel positively about the Open Government Initiative. I know that OGI is really cool! But we need to stay unbiased here on Wikipedia. For example, you use phrases like "core tenet" and other flowery language. You even have an entire section devoted to expounding upon OGI's Philosophy. If possible, you could find information that sheds light on perhaps any pitfalls or issues OGI has ever been faced with since its enactment.

I also noticed that in your opening paragraph you say that the Open Data Movement has led to governments around the world "offering their take on OGD". This isn't a film review, it's Wikipedia :)

It appears you have some issues with at least three sources in terms of formatting. I would look into fixing that. If fixing those sources proves difficult, perhaps you can look into other sources.

Erikabucb (talk) 08:43, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

Response to Peer Reviews
Response to Melissa: Melissa's suggestion to change the similar projects section was interesting. I think that it is an actionable change, because it allows readers to gain more information into other projects that have already been written about in greater detail. I would only be able to cover it superficially in my article. Moreover by changing that section, I could add much more content into the overall article.

Response to James: James mentioned comparing and contrasting the two schools of thought I wrote about when it comes to the Open Government Initiative. I thought that was an interesting idea, but I am unsure if that suggestion is within the scope of Wikipedia encyclopedic writing; I will have to look more into that suggestion. I have the same concern in regards to including economic/social effects on society. For the similar projects section, Melissa gave similar advice. I believe I can act on both suggestions from Melissa and James by re-writing the section to focus on how other governments are implementing their own forms of the Open Government Initiative.

Response to Erika: I will certainly change the section title from "Manifestations" to "Implementations." That was what I was going for and conveys the idea better. Erika was also correct that I should avoid conversational phrases like the ones she pointed out; I should phrase those more factually. In regards to remaining more unbiased, I did try to remain neutral; however, I can see how my article can be viewed as in favor of OGI. I think Erika's suggestion to include a section on pitfalls/issues would be a great way to present another view. I also should probably change the phrase "offering their take" because it is too much of a literary phrase, whereas Wiki is a factual form of writing. I didn't understand completely what Erika meant by "formatting," but I will do another review of my sources. Generally, in response to Erika's feedback, I need to do a better job of avoiding specific phrases that either convey bias or break factual tone. Shrino (talk) 19:29, 22 October 2019 (UTC)