Jump to content

User:Alex K. Tran/sandbox: Difference between revisions

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
No edit summary
←Replaced content with '{{dashboard.wikiedu.org sandbox}} = Alex Tran = Hi all! My name is Alex Tran and I am in UGBA 192AC. <br /> == Article Evaluation == '''March For Our Live...'
Tags: Replaced Visual edit
Line 2: Line 2:


= Alex Tran =
= Alex Tran =
Hi all! My name is Alex Tran and I am in UGBA 39E.
Hi all! My name is Alex Tran and I am in UGBA 192AC.

<br />


== Article Evaluation ==
== Article Evaluation ==
'''March For Our Lives''' (also known as MFOL) started after the Stoneman Douglas High School shooting back in February of 2018.<ref>{{Citation|title=Stoneman Douglas High School shooting|date=2020-02-17|url=https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Stoneman_Douglas_High_School_shooting&oldid=941246082|work=Wikipedia|language=en|access-date=2020-02-17}}</ref> The march specifically took place on March 24, 2018, led by students around the world pushing for gun-reform legislation.


* I believe that the ordering of all the information was well put together. This article begins with the planning of the event (referencing the weeks that transpired after the shooting and how the teens at Stoneman Douglas responded). In addition, this section mentions the celebrity support that was behind the event. Then, it references the participation and responses from both supporters and the opposition. One of the tools that were essential to this movement was social media. This is referenced on the Wikipedia page. The last section is Locations. In my opinion, this section was extremely confusing due to the wide range of one sentence information, as well as the wide range of work cited information.
* Is everything in the article relevant to the article topic? Is there anything that distracted you?
* The entirety of the article provides developed information on what the MFOL stands for. In the response section, there is reference to the NRA, politicians, and media. In my opinion, although I would not define this article as biased, I believe that there should be more information in the NRA and politician section that is equivalent to the facts provided for the information about the MFOL. Furthermore, I think there should be a section in the responses about what the advocates for gun reform think.
** The article that I did research on was called "Civic application" and can be found at [[Civic application]]. Everything on this page was pretty relevant to the topic at hand. It was not too long, but I would suggest there be more pictures for this specific article.
* Therefore, I believe that the NRA and politician section in responses is underrepresented.
* Is the article neutral? Are there any claims, or frames, that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
** The article is pretty neutral and their claims or not heavily biased towards a particular side.
* This article is linked to over 370+ links and the ones I checked works well.
* The facts referenced are appropriate and range from a variety of news sources including ABC, NBC, and other local news sources. The information is not out of date as it is mostly from 2018.
* Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
* When looking at the Talk page of the article, the majority of the conversations are based on the article structure. For example, one of the diagrams in the Talk page is a map that shows where MFOL movements are occurring.
** With the previous answer being noted, I still believe that the article does not reference the dangers of Civic applications. It talks about "Non-Governmental Organizations and public national institutions are noticing the value of the civic apps" ([[Civic application]]). However, the article does not talk about the dangers that Civic application has for civilians as it offers dangerous entry points for ransomware and potential hackers.
* This article is part of the following projects and is rated as follows:
* Check a few citations. Do the links work? Does the source support the claims in the article?
** WikiProject Firearms --> show(Rated C-class, Low-importance)
** When checking the links, they all work and support the claims mentioned in the article.
** WikiProject Politics/Gun politics --> show(Rated B-class, Mid-importance)
* Is each fact referenced with an appropriate, reliable reference? Where does the information come from? Are these neutral sources? If biased, is that bias noted?
** WikiProject Sociology/ Social Movements --> show(Rated B-class, Mid-importance)
** The facts referenced are from websites such as [http://opencityapps.org/ http://opencityapps.org]. This website is straight from the civic application so it has reliable information. With that being said, it doesn't offer sources from those that oppose the Civic application platform.
** WikiProject United States/ District of Columbia --> show(Rated C-class, Low-importance)
* Is any information out of date? Is anything missing that could be added?
** Everything seems to be pretty up to date.
* 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?
** The only thing that was commented was from fellow classmate James Wang who said, "What are some of the disadvantages of using civic application and how can this negatively impact the market of civic technology?".
* How is the article rated? Is it a part of any WikiProjects?
** Start-Class and High-Performance. It is a part of the WikiProject Software and Politics.
* How does the way Wikipedia discusses this topic differ from the way we've talked about it in class?
** In class we briefly mentioned the cons of these Civic applications, whereas this article does not. Something that I do appreciate is how it references the goals that Civic applications usually embody.
*Required (Not optional as stated on WikiEdu.org): Choose at least 1 question relevant to the article you're evaluating and leave your evaluation on the article's Talk page. Be sure to sign your feedback with four tildes — <code><nowiki>~~~~</nowiki></code>. Put a link in your sandbox to the evaluation on the Talk page for the article.
**[[Talk:Civic application]][[File:6-The-Erosion-of-Democracy Page 03 Image 0001.jpg|thumb|Irrelevant image!]]

== Choosing Possible Topics ==

* '''Look up 3-5 potential topics related to the course that you might want to update on Wikipedia. Review the content of the articles and check the Talk pages to see what other Wikipedians are already contributing. Identify one or two areas from each that you could improve.'''
** [[Gun control]]
*** Doesn't reference recent gun control regulation as being put into place or pushes that have been instituted by various gun reform groups.
*** Also doesn't mention the NRA's impact on gun control policies.
** [[Abortion]]
*** I believe that the history and religion portions should be split due to the strong difference between the two and the confusion that is caused when they are together.
*** I think there should be a larger reference to recent abortion cases in the news.
** [[College tuition in the United States]]
*** I believe that there should be the mentioning of the impact that college and the college tuition has on different wealth classes.
*** In addition, I believe that there should be a section on politics and how different movements have pushed for changes within the tuition system.
* '''Choose 2-3 potential articles from that list that you could tackle, and post links to the articles and your notes about what you might improve in [[Special:MyPage/sandbox|your sandbox (Links to an external site.)]].'''
** [[Abortion]]
*** I believe that there should be a more elaborate description on the pro-life and pro-choice sides. As I mentioned earlier, I also believe that there should be more news on recent abortion laws and opinions.
*** In addition, there is no recent survey to gage various opinions. "A 1995 survey reported that Catholic women are as likely as the general population to terminate a pregnancy, [[Protestants]] are less likely to do so, and [[Evangelical Christians]] are the least likely to do so."
** [[Gun control#Regulation%20of%20civilian%20firearms|Gun control #Regulation of civilian firearms]]
*** "Another 2017 study showed that laws banning gun possession by people subject to intimate partner violence restraining orders, and requiring such people to give up any guns they have, were associated with lower intimate partner homicide rates." Throughout the paragraphs this was constantly repeated. Instead of going into depth about a specific study, the article would quickly glance over every study by making it sound like some sort of list. This was extremely hard to read and decreased the value behind every study in my opinion.
*** When talking about the regulation of fire arms, the article just talks about surveys, but now what is being done or put into place.
*** "A 2011 survey of 28 countries over five continents found that a major distinction between different national regimes of firearm regulation is whether civilian gun ownership is seen as a right or a privilege."
*** I believe that this is important to improve in order to keep people up to date and understanding of current trends and issues.

== Finalize Topic and Sources ==
For my topic, I want to focus on [[Digital health]] and the progress that is being made this year in terms of [[Wireless device|wireless devices]], [[telemedicine]], [[software]], and [[cybersecurity]]. In addition, I want to talk about the improvements being made to key health technologies such as heart disease. A big reason I want to choose this topic is due to the fact that the ethics of the issue interests me. On top of that, I am doing research on the topic for another project that I am working on.



As I mentioned in the page for Digital health... "In 2019, the FDA published a ''Digital Health Innovation Action Plan'' that would reduce inefficiencies for physicians in an effort to cut overhead costs, improve access, increase quality of service, and make medicine more easily adapted for each person. Topics within the innovation plan are [[Wireless device|wireless devices]], [[telemedicine]], [[software]], and [[cybersecurity]], among others." This will be the main umbrella of my topic, focusing on change within government as well.

'''Potential Sources:'''

"Digital health". US Food and Drug Administration. 19 July 2019. Retrieved 23 September 2019.

https://medium.com/the-sustainable-future/the-coeducation-of-civic-tech-and-digital-health-b57b89252f34

https://medium.com/tradecraft-traction/navigating-the-field-of-civic-tech-c1f9670c8f69

https://onlinedegrees.sandiego.edu/8-technologies-changing-healthcare/

https://healthinformatics.uic.edu/blog/5-ways-technology-is-improving-health/

https://online.king.edu/news/digitizing-healthcare-how-technology-is-improving-medical-care/

http://news.mit.edu/topic/health

https://healthadministrationdegree.usc.edu/blog/3-challenges-of-technology-implementation-in-healthcare/

= Delegative Democracy v2 =

== Comparing and Understanding Delegative Democracy ==
Delegative Democracy<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://newvote.org/delegative-democracy|title=Delegative democracy|website=NewVote|language=en-US|access-date=2019-10-30}}</ref> has found its way to some of the largest countries in the world and some of these being post-communist. These countries include Argentina, Brazil, Peru, Ecuador, Bolivia, the Philippines, and Korea<ref>{{Cite journal|last=O'Donell|first=Guillermo A.|date=1994|title=Delegative Democracy|url=https://muse.jhu.edu/article/225426|journal=Journal of Democracy|language=en|volume=5|issue=1|pages=55–69|doi=10.1353/jod.1994.0010|issn=1086-3214}}</ref>. When looking at these countries and others, it is evident that delegative democracies are not institutionalized as they are the midpoint between authoritarianism and representative democracy.

When looking at authoritarianism, [[authoritarianism|'''authoritarianism''']] is a type of government that focuses on strong centralized powers, leaving the population to having limited political freedoms. Authoritarianism is seen as having four main qualities of limited political pluralism, political legitimacy based on lawmakers and politicians appealing to emotion, minimal mobilization within the political sphere and the suppression of anti-regime activities, and finally loosely-defined executive powers that can lead to dictatorships at times.

[[Representative democracy|'''Representative democracy''']], on the other hand, is a type of government that is founded on democracy, based on elected officials that represent the governing body. Within a representative democracy, the power for the representatives is backed by a constitution or other factors to balance the representative power, such as independent judiciaries, [[deliberative democracy]], and a [[bicameral legislature]].

Delegative democracies are also described as '''defective democracies'''. Delegative democracies are democracies that have some sort of "defect" to them, hence the name. The characteristics of a delegative democracy are that it undermines the idea of [[separation of powers]] (checks and balances). This is due to the fact that in the delegative democracy, the Executive branch holds dominant power, as the legislative and judicial branches of government (mainly the legislative) do not hold the ability to "check and balance" the Executive branch.

== Delegative Democracy Due to Cycles: The Second Transition ==
Delegative democracies are able to prosper in their respective areas due to the fact that there is a specific social and economic crisis that allows those in charge to go about the exercise of their authority. When looking at the history of delegative democracies, it is seen that they are typically set into place after an authoritarian ruling.

The timing after this ruling and establishment of a democratic-based government is known as the “second transition”. This is moving from a democratically-elected government to a democratic regime, also known as an institutionalized democracy. During this “second transition”, new democracies can become authoritarian ruling once again. The main element for determining what occurs during the second transition is the governmental policies and the political strategy. When the people see the success of these institutions that specifically support social and economic problems, delegative democracy prevails. This is what occurs in Spain.

The overall idea of delegative democracy as a whole is spun from Robert Dahl’s definition of polyarchy. When an individual is elected within a delegative democracy, they are able to govern the country as they see fit.<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://kellogg.nd.edu/sites/default/files/old_files/documents/172_0.pdf|title=Delegative Democracy?|last=O'Donnell|first=|date=|website=|url-status=live|archive-url=|archive-date=|access-date=}}</ref> Some of these individuals include [[Indira Gandhi]], [[Corazon Aquino]], and [[Isabel Martínez de Perón|Isable Peron]]). The President is representative of the nation and their actions are said to represent the needs of the whole nation. Their actions are not party-affiliated and in fact, puts themselves above all parties. Unlike democratic republics like the United States who has Congress and the Judiciary, accountability is put all on the President instead of other institutions. Although delegative democracy focuses power on one leader, it shares democratic traditions in terms of allowing the majority to win.

== Argentina ==
[[File:President Fernandez on Election Day.jpg|thumb|President Fernandez on his Election Day.]]
One of the largest examples of a Delegative democracy<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://deptofbioregion.org/policy-issues-1/tag/Delegative+Democracy|title=Delegative Democracy — Policy Issues|website=Department of Bioregion|language=en-US|access-date=2019-10-30}}</ref> in '''[[Argentina]]'''<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://siteresources.worldbank.org/PUBLICSECTORANDGOVERNANCE/Resources/AccountabilityGovernance.pdf|title=Accountability in Governance|last=|first=|date=|website=|url-status=live|archive-url=|archive-date=|access-date=}}</ref>'''. Argentina'''<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://www.panoramas.pitt.edu/news-and-politics/argentina-still-delegative-democracy|title=Is Argentina Still A Delegative Democracy?|date=2016-10-11|website=Panoramas|language=en|access-date=2019-10-30}}</ref> has seen large success in its delegative democracy due to the vertical accountability that is in place. Vertical accountability is when civilians can enforce the performance of those that are in charge. Horizontal accountability, on the other hand, is when only the government is able to hold itself accountable, leading to check abuses by public agencies. When looking at what transpired in Argentina specifically, the death of Alberto Nisman under the rule of President Fernandez led to the foundation of delegative democracy.

Fernandez was able to dissolve the Secretariat of Intelligence and replace it with his new Federal Intelligence Agency. This ruling became a foundation for delegative democracy. Fernandez also released the Central Bank Chief, [[Martín Redrado|Martin Redrado]], after he failed to comply with the orders that she instilled.

== Why Delegative Democracies Fail? ==
Although some delegative democracies have been successful, there have been failures due to falling into a pervasive cycle of unhappiness from those that are being governed. Although the large social and economic problems are what allows these Presidents to set their position for their team, it is what also allows them to receive a discount from the population. Delegative democracy<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://u.osu.edu/latampolitics17/2017/02/19/delegative-democracy-a-failure-of-consolidation/|title=Delegative Democracy, A Failure of Consolidation|website=u.osu.edu|access-date=2019-10-30}}</ref> is all about the second phase of the democratic cycle so when this cycle is hindered by no economic and social growth, there tends to be unfavorable ruling for the political leader.

According to Guillermo O’Donnell<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://u.osu.edu/latampolitics17/2017/02/19/is-delegative-democracy-possible/|title=Is Delegative Democracy Possible?|website=u.osu.edu|access-date=2019-10-30}}</ref>,  “voters are supposed to choose, irrespective of their identities and affiliations, the individual who is most fit to take responsibility of the country… after the election, voters or delegators are expected to become passive, but cheering audience of what the president does".  In this sense, voters and the population have their main say in government while they are voting, but once the President is elected, the system reduces their power in terms of freedom of expression.

== Columbia ==
During his period of reign from 2002 to 2010, Columbia president Alvaro Uribe<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://www.journalofdemocracy.org/articles/delegative-democracy-revisited-colombias-surprising-resilience/|title=Delegative Democracy Revisited: Colombia’s Surprising Resilience|website=Journal of Democracy|language=en-US|access-date=2019-10-30}}</ref> focused all of his power in the executive branch to shift his country towards a delegative democracy. As seen in the examples above, there are times when a delegative democracy can lead to the weakening of institutions, proving to be an endless cycle of political turmoil. Columbia represents an interesting case of overall changes after a delegative democracy is institutionalized through leaders such as Juan Manuel.

When looking at Colombia<ref>{{Cite web|url=http://www.coha.org/delegative-democracy-the-case-of-colombia/|title=Delegative Democracy: The Case of Colombia|last=COHA|language=en-US|access-date=2019-10-30}}</ref> from 2002 to 2010, they were exhibiting a lack of checks and balances due to horizontal accountability where the governmental agencies serve the checks and balances. Various government agencies were not progressive towards people’s needs. During Uribe’s presidency, his first project was staging a national referendum that focused on establishing a unicameral congress. On top of that, Uribe and his inner group attempted to minimize those that were against this ruling. Credible members of political organizations were removed due to the questioning of his administration. These attacks on key institutions within Columbia represented a large issue in Uribe’s governing style in the undermining of the institutionalization of democracy.

Uribe and his policies became known as “uribismo”. “Uribismo”<ref>{{Cite journal|last=Kajsiu|first=Blendi|date=2019-03-11|title=The Colombian Right: the political ideology and mobilization of Uribismo|url=https://www.researchgate.net/publication/331666336_The_Colombian_Right_the_political_ideology_and_mobilization_of_Uribismo|journal=Canadian Journal of Latin American and Caribbean Studies / Revue canadienne des études latino-américaines et caraïbes|pages=1–21|doi=10.1080/08263663.2019.1581495}}</ref> is what deteriorated the country’s capacity for accountability between governmental offices. Uribismo ideas were mainly backed by the “U” Parry and the Radical Change Party. Evident in all of these issues that Uribismo caused, delegative democracy leaders have a lack of qualifications but due to the viewpoints of the people, it justifies their authoritarian behavior.

== [[Institutional Revolutionary Party]] ==
[[File:Institutional Revolutionary Party (PRI) logo.jpg|thumb|175x175px|Institutional Revolutionary Party (PRI) logo.]]
The Institutional Revolutionary Party ([[Spanish language|Spanish]]: ''Partido Revolucionario Institucional'', '''PRI''') in Mexico is an example of a party that led to a rise of delegative democracy within a country. The PRI came into power in 1929 with the help of [[Plutarco Elías Calles]], a Mexican general and politician. Prior to the rise of the PRI, the country was plagued with political conflict and turmoil due to the assasssination of President-elect [[Álvaro Obregón]] in 1928. One of the renowned symbols of the PRI is the ''dedazo'' (termed from the word ''dedo -'' finger).This symbolized the idea that the current president would pass down the title to whoever they "pointed the finger" to. This process alone shows why delegative democracy takes away the ideas of separation of powers as the democratic process in the people electing their officials is removed. In addition, instead of being checked and balanced by other branches, the president had a select group of cabinet advisers that consisted of at least three individuals extremely close to the president.

In 1988, the PRI slowly began to dissolve after multiple progression and the breaking out of the parties "[[Democratic Current]]" with [[Cuauhtémoc Cárdenas]] (former [[Governor of Michoacán]] and son of the former president of Mexico [[Lázaro Cárdenas]]).

== LiquidFeedback ==
[[File:Liquid Feedback Screenshot.png|thumb|This is an image of LiquidFeedback's platform.|345x345px]]
[[LiquidFeedback]] is a software that is used for political opinion formation and decision making. The platform combines both representative democracy and direct democracy. LiquidFeedback allows governing bodies to gain insight on what their body is looking for or what they need. LiquidFeedback relates to Liquid Democracy in that it allows for individuals to push their ideas without fear or opposition to do so. Individuals can vote on issues themselves or delegate that vote to those that they see fit.

On top of voting and creating decisions, they are also able to create various propositions. LiquidFeedback allows the ability to create bills and establishes stronger democracy, giving people the ability to fight for their respective policies safely. This ultimately leads to the protection of minorities as it allows them to present their views and propose their vote.[[File:Delegative democracy, proxy voting, liquid democracy.svg|thumb|Delegative democracy: LiquidFeedback's ability to delegate their vote. |300.996x300.996px]]LiquidFeedback is not beneficial in the sense that it has created disparities and separation among members of the [[Pirate Party Germany|German Pirate Party]]. The German Pirate Party is a political party in Germany founded in September of 2006. The party has gained votes to infiltrate four different state parliaments, being Berlin, North Rhine-Westphalia, Saarland, and Schleswig-Holstein. The party supports current civil rights throughout the web and oppose the data retention policies instituted in Europe.

The opposition has highlighted that because the software records individuals' votes, it also allows for hackers to gain information on political tendencies and other unique information that can prove detrimental if in the wrong hands.

The benefits of LiquidFeedback is that, as stated earlier, it gives more people a voice. The ability to delegate votes allows for more educated votes to take place. On top of that, there could be instances where voters cannot vote due to extreme circumstances. Overall voting turnout can increase through instituting this policy and platform. <references />

== Peer Review ==

# [[User:Mervitan/Politics and technology/Alex K. Tran Peer Review|<small>User:Mervitan/Politics and technology/Alex K. Tran Peer Review</small>]]
#

===<small>General info</small>===

*<small>Whose work are you reviewing? (provide username)</small>
**<small>Mervitan</small>
*<small>Link to draft you're reviewing:</small>
**[[Politics and technology|<small>Politics and technology</small>]]

===<small>Lead</small>===
<small>Guiding questions:</small>

*<small>Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer?</small>
**<small>Yes, the lead has been updated to reflect the new content that Mervi will be adding.</small>
*<small>Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?</small>
**<small>Mervi's start to the lead is informative and organized!</small>
*<small>Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?</small>
**<small>Mervi's lead does not offer a brief description of the article's major sections.</small>
*<small>Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?</small>
**<small>It includes newfound information that is informative.</small>
*<small>Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?</small>
**<small>The information is concise, but could be more organized with headers and subtitles.</small>

====<small>Lead evaluation: More subtitles!</small>====

===<small>Content</small>===
<small>Guiding questions:</small>

*<small>Is the content added relevant to the topic?</small>
**<small>Yes, the content added relevant to the topic.</small>
*<small>Is the content added up-to-date?</small>
**<small>Yes, the content added up-to-date.</small>
*<small>Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?</small>
**<small>There is no content missing as all content is cited as well.</small>

====<small>Content evaluation: Overall good content!</small>====

===<small>Tone and Balance</small>===
<small>Guiding questions:</small>

*<small>Is the content added neutral?</small>
**<small>The content that is added is neutral.</small>
*<small>Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?</small>
**<small>No, there are no claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position.</small>
*<small>Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?</small>
**<small>Viewpoints are fairly neutral.</small>
*<small>Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?</small>
**<small>No, content is netural.</small>

====<small>Tone and balance evaluation: Neutral</small>====

===<small>Sources and References</small>===
<small>Guiding questions:</small>

*<small>Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?</small>
**<small>All new content is backed up by a reliable secondary source of information</small>
*<small>Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?</small>
**<small>All sources are thorough</small>
*<small>Are the sources current?</small>
**<small>All are current</small>
*<small>Check a few links. Do they work?</small>
**<small>The links that I checked are good!</small>

====<small>Sources and references evaluation</small>====

===<small>Organization</small>===
<small>Guiding questions:</small>

*<small>Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?</small>
**<small>Content is well-written and easy to read</small>
*<small>Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors?</small>
**<small>No mistakes</small>
*<small>Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?</small>
**<small>Should be organized with headings better</small>

====<small>Organization evaluation: 8/10</small>====

===<small>Images and Media</small>===
<small>Guiding questions: If your peer added images or media</small>

*<small>Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic?</small>
**<small>None.</small>
*<small>Are images well-captioned?</small>
**<small>None</small>
*<small>Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations?</small>
**<small>None</small>
*<small>Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way?</small>
**<small>None</small>

====<small>Images and media evaluation: None!</small>====

=== <s><small>For New Articles Only</small></s> ===
<s><small>If the draft you're reviewing is a new article, consider the following in addition to the above.</small></s>

* <s><small>Does the article meet Wikipedia's [[wikipedia:Notability|Notability]] requirements - i.e. Is the article supported by 2-3 reliable secondary sources independent of the subject?</small></s>
* <s><small>How exhaustive is the list of sources? Does it accurately represent all available literature on the subject?</small></s>
* <s><small>Does the article follow the patterns of other similar articles - i.e. contain any necessary infoboxes, section headings, and any other features contained within similar articles?</small></s>
* <s><small>Does the article link to other articles so it is more discoverable?</small></s>

==== <s><small>New Article Evaluation</small></s> ====

===<small>Overall impressions</small>===
<small>Guiding questions:</small>

*<small>Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete? Yes</small>
*<small>What are the strengths of the content added?</small>
**<small>The strengths of this content is that readers are introduced to a wide range of information.</small>
*<small>How can the content added be improved?</small>
**<small>Add titles and subheadings</small>

====<small>Overall evaluation: 8.25/10</small>====

#[[User:Ishangill10/Civic journalism/Alex K. Tran Peer Review|<small>User:Ishangill10/Civic journalism/Alex K. Tran Peer Review</small>]]
#

===<small>General info</small>===

*<small>Whose work are you reviewing? (provide username)</small>
**<small>Ishangill10</small>
*<small>Link to draft you're reviewing:</small>
**[[Civic journalism|<small>Civic journalism</small>]]

===<small>Lead</small>===
<small>Guiding questions:</small>

*<small>Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer?</small>
**<small>Yes, the lead has been updated to reflect the new content that Ishan will be adding.</small>
*<small>Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?</small>
**<small>Ishan's start to the lead is not as organized as it could be.</small>
*<small>Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?</small>
**<small>Ishan does not offer a brief description of the article's major sections.</small>
*<small>Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?</small>
**<small>It includes newfound information that is informative.</small>
*<small>Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?</small>
**<small>The information is concise but could be organized better.</small>

====<small>Lead evaluation: Needs to be more organized.</small>====

===<small>Content</small>===
<small>Guiding questions:</small>

*<small>Is the content added relevant to the topic?</small>
**<small>Yes, the content added relevant to the topic.</small>
*<small>Is the content added up-to-date?</small>
**<small>Yes, the content added up-to-date.</small>
*<small>Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?</small>
**<small>There is no content missing as all content is cited as well.</small>

====<small>Content evaluation: Overall good content!</small>====

===<small>Tone and Balance</small>===
<small>Guiding questions:</small>

*<small>Is the content added neutral?</small>
**<small>The content that is added is neutral.</small>
*<small>Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?</small>
**<small>No, there are no claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position.</small>
*<small>Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?</small>
**<small>The viewpoints are fairly neutral.</small>
*<small>Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?</small>
**<small>No, the content is roughly neutral.</small>

====<small>Tone and balance evaluation: Neutral</small>====

===<small>Sources and References</small>===
<small>Guiding questions:</small>

*<small>Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?</small>
**<small>All new content is backed up by a reliable secondary source of information.</small>
*<small>Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?</small>
**<small>The sources are all thorough.</small>
*<small>Are the sources current?</small>
**<small>They are all recent.</small>
*<small>Check a few links. Do they work?</small>
**<small>The links that I checked work!</small>

====<small>Sources and references evaluation</small>====

===<small>Organization</small>===
<small>Guiding questions:</small>

*<small>Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?</small>
**<small>The content is well-written and is concise.</small>
*<small>Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors?</small>
**<small>No grammatical or spelling errors.</small>
*<small>Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?</small>
**<small>The content could be organized better!</small>

====<small>Organization evaluation: 7/10</small>====

===<small>Images and Media</small>===
<small>Guiding questions: If your peer added images or media</small>

**<small>Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic?</small>
***<small>No images.</small>
**<small>Are images well-captioned?</small>
***<small>No images.</small>
**<small>Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations?</small>
***<small>No images.</small>
**<small>Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way?</small>
***<small>No images.</small>

====<small>Images and media evaluation: No image!</small>====

=== <s><small>For New Articles Only</small></s> ===
<s><small>If the draft you're reviewing is a new article, consider the following in addition to the above.</small></s>

* <s><small>Does the article meet Wikipedia's [[wikipedia:Notability|Notability]] requirements - i.e. Is the article supported by 2-3 reliable secondary sources independent of the subject?</small></s>
* <s><small>How exhaustive is the list of sources? Does it accurately represent all available literature on the subject?</small></s>
* <s><small>Does the article follow the patterns of other similar articles - i.e. contain any necessary infoboxes, section headings, and any other features contained within similar articles?</small></s>
* <s><small>Does the article link to other articles so it is more discoverable?</small></s>

==== <s><small>New Article Evaluation</small></s> ====

===<small>Overall impressions</small>===
<small>Guiding questions:</small>

*<small>Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete? Yes!</small>
*<small>What are the strengths of the content added? There is a good amount of information which allows new content to be flowed to the reader!</small>
*<small>How can the content added be improved?</small>
**<small>Be more organized!</small>

====<small>Overall evaluation: 8/10</small>====

#<small>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Adamng926/Digital_citizen/Alex%20K.%20Tran_Peer_Review?preload=Template%3ADashboard.wikiedu.org_peer_review</small>

===<small>General info</small>===

*<small>Whose work are you reviewing? (provide username)</small>
**<small>Adamng926</small>
*<small>Link to draft you're reviewing:</small>
**[[User:Adamng926/New sandbox|<small>User:Adamng926/New sandbox</small>]]

===<small>Lead</small>===
<small>Guiding questions:</small>

*<small>Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer?</small>
**<small>Yes, the lead has been updated to reflect the new content that Adam will be adding.</small>
*<small>Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?</small>
**<small>Adam starts the lead with "According to DigCit.us, the overlapping goals of digital citizenship education include:", going straight into examples but not an introduction section.</small>
**
*<small>Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?</small>
**<small>Adam does not offer a brief description of the article's major sections.</small>
*<small>Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?</small>
**<small>It includes newfound information that is extremely informative.</small>
*<small>Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?</small>
**<small>Although it has a lot of information, it is all concise.</small>

====<small>Lead evaluation: Need a more organized lead.</small>====

===<small>Content</small>===
<small>Guiding questions:</small>

*<small>Is the content added relevant to the topic?</small>
**<small>Yes, the content added relevant to the topic.</small>
*<small>Is the content added up-to-date?</small>
**<small>Yes, the content added up-to-date.</small>
*<small>Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?</small>
**<small>There is no content missing as all content is cited as well.</small>

====<small>Content evaluation: Solid content.</small>====

===<small>Tone and Balance</small>===
<small>Guiding questions:</small>

*<small>Is the content added neutral?</small>
**<small>The content that is added is neutral.</small>
*<small>Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?</small>
**<small>No, there are no claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position.</small>
*<small>Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?</small>
**<small>The viewpoints are fairly neutral.</small>
*<small>Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?</small>
**<small>No, the content is roughly neutral.</small>

====<small>Tone and balance evaluation: Very neutral.</small>====

===<small>Sources and References</small>===
<small>Guiding questions:</small>

*<small>Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?</small>
**<small>All new content is backed up by a reliable secondary source of information.</small>
*<small>Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?</small>
**<small>The sources are all thorough.</small>
*<small>Are the sources current?</small>
**<small>They are all recent.</small>
*<small>Check a few links. Do they work?</small>
**<small>The links work!</small>

====<small>Sources and references evaluation: Well backed by various sources.</small>====

===<small>Organization</small>===
<small>Guiding questions:</small>

*<small>Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?</small>
**<small>The content is well-written and is concise/clear.</small>
*<small>Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors?</small>
**<small>No grammatical or spelling errors.</small>
*<small>Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?</small>
**<small>The content is well organized, in fact, it also inspired me to organize my own content better.</small>

====<small>Organization evaluation: Overall well organized!</small>====

===<small>Images and Media</small>===
<small>Guiding questions: If your peer added images or media</small>

*<small>Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic?</small>
**<small>No images.</small>
*<small>Are images well-captioned?</small>
**<small>No images.</small>
*<small>Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations?</small>
**<small>No images.</small>
*<small>Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way?</small>
**<small>No images.</small>

====<small>Images and media evaluation: No images!</small>====

=== <s><small>For New Articles Only</small></s> ===
<s><small>If the draft you're reviewing is a new article, consider the following in addition to the above.</small></s>

* <s><small>Does the article meet Wikipedia's [[wikipedia:Notability|Notability]] requirements - i.e. Is the article supported by 2-3 reliable secondary sources independent of the subject?</small></s>
* <s><small>How exhaustive is the list of sources? Does it accurately represent all available literature on the subject?</small></s>
* <s><small>Does the article follow the patterns of other similar articles - i.e. contain any necessary infoboxes, section headings, and any other features contained within similar articles?</small></s>
* <s><small>Does the article link to other articles so it is more discoverable?</small></s>

==== <s><small>New Article Evaluation</small></s> ====

===<small>Overall impressions</small>===
<small>Guiding questions:</small>

*<small>Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete? Yes!</small>
*<small>What are the strengths of the content added? The strengths is the organization and detail. By breaking down the digital citizenship education, it allows content to be easily registrable for all individuals, even those who do not understand what is going on.</small>
*<small>How can the content added be improved?</small>
**<small>Be more clear and offer more introduction. Don't force it in.</small>

====<small>Overall evaluation: 8.5/10</small>====

== Respond to Peer Reviews ==
General info

·      Whose work are you reviewing? (provide username) Alex K. Tran

·      Link to draft you're reviewing: [[Delegative democracy]]

Lead

Guiding questions:

·      Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer?

o   The lead has been updated to reflect the new content added by Alex.

o   '''Alex’s Response: I still need to organize the lead better and create some sort of system to organize all my information.'''

·      Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?

o   The lead does include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the topic.

o   '''Alex’s Response: The lead does include the afore mentioned.'''

·      Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?

o   The lead does indeed include a brief overall description of the article's major sections.

o   '''Alex’s Response: The lead provides a brief description but needs a heading.'''

·      Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?

o   The lead does include information that is not present in the article, and the additions are detailed in nature.

o   '''Alex’s Response: My information is different.'''

·      Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?

o   The lead is quite detailed in their additions to the article.

o   '''Alex’s Response: Thank you Ishan for your comment.'''

Lead evaluation

Content

Guiding questions:

·      Is the content added relevant to the topic?

o   The content Alex has added is exhaustive and relevant to the topics as well.

o   '''Alex’s Response: My content is relevant, but I would like to create separate sections for all my examples.'''

·      Is the content added up-to-date?

o   The content added is indeed up to date and does not include outdated sources or information.

o   '''Alex’s Response: The content is up to date, but I would like to find newly relevant topics and examples.'''

·      Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?

o   There is not necessarily content that does not belong, but there is most likely some content missing from this article since overall there was not much to begin with. The article needed quite a bit of improvement and Alex has done a good job of making additions.

o   '''Alex’s Response: I am missing structure that allows me to talk about past examples and potential examples that would lead to or inspire delegative democracy.'''

Content evaluation

Tone and Balance

Guiding questions:

·      Is the content added neutral?

o   The content added maintains a neutral point of view.

o   '''Alex’s Response: My content is neutral.'''

·      Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?

o   There are no biased claims that were involved.

o   '''Alex’s Response: My content is not biased.'''

·      Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?

o   All viewpoints are evenly spread in terms of representation. Since there was not much in the article to begin with, Alex did an excellent job of adding information from both positive and negative viewpoints.

o   '''Alex’s Response: Thank you Ishan for this kind viewpoint.'''

·      Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?

o   The added content does not attempt to persuade the reader.

o   '''Alex’s Response: My content does not attempt to persuade the reader.'''

Tone and balance evaluation

Sources and References

Guiding questions:

·      Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?

o   All sources are reliable, and the content is extracted skillfully from the sources with no signs of plagiarism.

o   '''Alex’s Response: The sources I used were reliable, but I believe that I need to be clearer and more organized with my work in terms of using correct citation.'''

·      Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?

o   The sources are indeed thorough.

o   '''Alex’s Response: My sources are thorough, but I believe that the more sources the merrier.'''

·      Are the sources current?

o   All sources used are current and provide relevant information to the topic at hand.

o   '''Alex’s Response: All my sources are current and provide relevant information.'''

·      Check a few links. Do they work?

o   The links that I checked do work and redirected me to an external source.

o   '''Alex’s Response: The links that I had worked and redirected to an external source.'''

Sources and references evaluation

Organization

Guiding questions:

·      Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?

o   The content added is well-written, and quite exhaustive as well. Overall, it maintains a neutral point of view and is relatively easy to read for any reader.

o   '''Alex’s Response: The content is concise, clear and easy to read, but I believe that I could do better.'''

·      Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors?

o   I did not find any grammatical or spelling errors.

o   '''There are no grammatical errors when I did my second check.'''

·      Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?

o   All added content is relatively well organized but could be broken down into greater detail with more sections or headers to symbolize a divide when bringing up new topics or viewpoints related to delegative democracy.

o   '''My content is not broken down into sections as much as I think I want, so I will do more.'''

Organization evaluation

<s>Images and Media</s>

<s>Guiding questions: If your peer added images or media</s>

·      <s>Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic?</s>

·      <s>Are images well-captioned?</s>

·      <s>Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations?</s>

·      <s>Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way?</s>

Images and media evaluation

<s>For New Articles Only</s>

<s>If the draft you're reviewing is a new article, consider the following in addition to the above.</s>

·      <s>Does the article meet Wikipedia's [[wikipedia:Notability|Notability]] requirements - i.e. Is the article supported by 2-3 reliable secondary sources independent of the subject?</s>

·      <s>How exhaustive is the list of sources? Does it accurately represent all available literature on the subject?</s>

·      <s>Does the article follow the patterns of other similar articles - i.e. contain any necessary info boxes, section headings, and any other features contained within similar articles?</s>

·      <s>Does the article link to other articles so it is more discoverable?</s>

New Article Evaluation

Overall impressions

Guiding questions:

·      Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete?

o   The article does seem more complete after Alex added his information to the article. The quality of the article was very subpar beforehand, and Alex has included relevant information. Any improvements or additions to this article with relevant information on the topic of delegative democracy, such as the information that Alex added, is undoubtedly useful.

·      What are the strengths of the content added?

o   The content added is all relevant and brings up information on what delegative democracy is in greater detail. It also does a good job of portraying how proponents feel about this topic but conveying certain negatives as well. Overall, more background context and detail are brought into the article which was not present before.

·      How can the content added be improved?

o   Previously in the article, too much emphasis was being put on different countries that implemented this philosophy, and the article sub-headers were based upon this. Alex did a good job of providing more specific detail on what a delegative democracy entails for the people and for the government rather than simply describing use-cases.

'''Overall, I believe that I will take these suggestions and try to do a better job in terms of organization. Other than that, I want to plan out a strategy for the next portion of my writing in an effort to provide more analysis and depth to the topic at hand. Finally, I would like to thank Ishan for his comments as they were constructive and eye opening. Through these, I hope to find improvement points and work towards getting better.'''




Required (Not optional as stated on WikiEdu.org): https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:March_for_Our_Lives&action=edit
Overall Evaluation: 9/10

Revision as of 17:27, 17 February 2020

Alex Tran

Hi all! My name is Alex Tran and I am in UGBA 192AC.


Article Evaluation

March For Our Lives (also known as MFOL) started after the Stoneman Douglas High School shooting back in February of 2018.[1] The march specifically took place on March 24, 2018, led by students around the world pushing for gun-reform legislation.

  • I believe that the ordering of all the information was well put together. This article begins with the planning of the event (referencing the weeks that transpired after the shooting and how the teens at Stoneman Douglas responded). In addition, this section mentions the celebrity support that was behind the event. Then, it references the participation and responses from both supporters and the opposition. One of the tools that were essential to this movement was social media. This is referenced on the Wikipedia page. The last section is Locations. In my opinion, this section was extremely confusing due to the wide range of one sentence information, as well as the wide range of work cited information.
  • The entirety of the article provides developed information on what the MFOL stands for. In the response section, there is reference to the NRA, politicians, and media. In my opinion, although I would not define this article as biased, I believe that there should be more information in the NRA and politician section that is equivalent to the facts provided for the information about the MFOL. Furthermore, I think there should be a section in the responses about what the advocates for gun reform think.
  • Therefore, I believe that the NRA and politician section in responses is underrepresented.
  • This article is linked to over 370+ links and the ones I checked works well.
  • The facts referenced are appropriate and range from a variety of news sources including ABC, NBC, and other local news sources. The information is not out of date as it is mostly from 2018.
  • When looking at the Talk page of the article, the majority of the conversations are based on the article structure. For example, one of the diagrams in the Talk page is a map that shows where MFOL movements are occurring.
  • This article is part of the following projects and is rated as follows:
    • WikiProject Firearms --> show(Rated C-class, Low-importance)
    • WikiProject Politics/Gun politics --> show(Rated B-class, Mid-importance)
    • WikiProject Sociology/ Social Movements --> show(Rated B-class, Mid-importance)
    • WikiProject United States/ District of Columbia --> show(Rated C-class, Low-importance)


Required (Not optional as stated on WikiEdu.org): https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:March_for_Our_Lives&action=edit

  1. ^ "Stoneman Douglas High School shooting", Wikipedia, 2020-02-17, retrieved 2020-02-17
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=User:Alex_K._Tran/sandbox&oldid=941281206"