User talk:Classikhgirl/sandbox

Hello! Your article edits are very interesting so far! Definitely be sure to add citations where they are needed. Also, I read the original article and following are my suggested edits for it. They might be helpful to keep in mind while you're editing the article! The article does a great job at providing information related to civic technology. It provides an array of categories and examples to explain civic tech; however, the important parts/definitions of this article seem to get lost among random facts and examples. The definition section could use reworking because essentially by its title it is meant to serve a similar purpose as the lead section. This section relies too heavily on sources as it uses the Knight Foundation extensively to define civic tech and its purpose. In this sense, this section is written like a research paper as it primarily lists facts and attempts to leave an analysis. I think it may be useful to break up this "definition" section into multiple parts to define civic tech in terms of social media, modern businesses, relationship with citizens, and so on. I especially think there should be an entire section dedicated to social media's engagement in civic technology that is broken down into Facebook, twitter, instagram, etc instead of having this topic dispersed throughout the article–as a read it will be easier to follow this way. This section also mentions voting insecurity briefly and provides examples of digital voting advancements; this seems a bit out of place maybe consider moving part of this to the section on civic hacking. As well, the "civic technology around the world" section relies too heavily on its sources to intro this topic. It also provides too many example countries to be relevant. It might be useful to organize this section by "citizen-led initiatives" and "government-led initiatives" and then placing countries under these categories. Overall, the information and sources are there but I think the article needs to be reorganized to provide a better flow of information. The language of the article at times is too argumentative; perhaps consider making it have a more consistent neutral tone throughout. Alyssaamoreno (talk) 04:28, 3 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Alyssa! Thank you for your comments on the draft. I will for sure add citations to the draft where they are necessary. I agree with much of what you have said about the article, especially about the different countries and how they aren't really quite organized or relevant the way they are. Each country has only a sentence or two underneath it so I chose to just tackle one country to try to develop. I think definitely the organization of those countries and the structure of the article in general needs to be overhauled and a lot more information about each country needs to be added. Classikhgirl (talk) 15:25, 3 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Jeshua Peer Review

I think there are good points for this. When you say it has an "obvious bias in the tone of the article", what do you mean exactly/How have you seen this in the article? I'm not sure that you will still be working on this article, but it will be useful to help develop this if there is bias that is so strong.

JeshuaKJohn (talk) 06:56, 13 March 2019 (UTC) JeshuaKJohn (talk) 22:25, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]