User talk:Jameswang323/sandbox

Hi! I have just added a peer review in your sandbox, have a great weekend! Bobalily (talk) 02:10, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

Hey. I'm Tenzin from Berkeley, CA.

Hey, I just provided feedback to your proposed additions. The link below goes to the page where I placed the feedback. Good Work! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Jameswang323/Civic_Intelligence/Brusso7_Peer_Review Brusso7 (talk) 00:52, 15 October 2019 (UTC)Bradley Russo

Feedback on Article from Shriniket Maddipatla

I liked how much content you had for each section. No one section felt lacking compared to another. I also liked how many sources you used. Much of what you wrote had sources to support.

I would say create sections to make the outline of your article easier to understand and for others to find specific information quickly.

In the first paragraph, you say "it would be helpful." Generally, you want to avoid phrases like that because they breach Wiki NPOV. Each sentence should be purely factual and not represent any sort of bias.

You have one sentence that says "Ultimately, it is shown by research that citizens who are more informed and more attentive to the world of politics around them are more politically engaged both at the local and national level." I would say find a source that backs this up just to be on the safe side.

In your paragraph about AI, you begin prescribing action for global communities to work together and promote the use of AI. Again, that would be breaking NPOV; I would say to reword that phrase to give it a factual tone.

Generally, I have two suggestions. 1) Be more conscious about your tone. There were a few points throughout the article where you stopped presenting facts and began prescribing actions or presenting your own opinions. 2) Try to back up more of your writing with sources. I am certainly guilty of this, but the goal is to have every sentence you write be backed up with sources.

Shrino (talk) 19:51, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

Feedback on Article from Melissa Wang

I appreciate the amount of background you would disclose towards the new article contributions. I liked how the sources you included were from credible sources and also added newly published articles. Overall, I would say there are some grammatical and capitalization errors scattered throughout the article editions, so make sure to revise these small parts. In addition, I feel like some of your points had some personal opinions. I mentioned this in the peer evaluation, but I think if you refrained from assuming that having a different background would ultimately lead to newer ideas. The tone you included could be fixed. I think it would be good to avoid giving recommendations while you talk about the rise of artificial intelligence. Great article regardless! Don't be afraid to include more references or even link Wikipedia pages such as the AI Summit too. Melissawwang (talk) 06:20, 16 October 2019 (UTC) Here is my website link to the peer evaluation: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Jameswang323/Civic_Intelligence/Melissawwang_Peer_Review