User talk:Rmhargrove/sandbox
Feedback re: cyborg anthropology article 2017-02-01
[edit]I'm glad to see that you posted revisions to live Wikipedia, but I'm going to go ahead and comment here rather than on the public talk page for now. I'll look at the published version at the end of the week.
In general, I think you've made some substantial improvements by re-organizing and clarifying the structure. Your writing is clear and concise, and you're doing a very nice job.
I have a couple of suggestions about citations. You start out with the 1985 publication. You can go ahead and include a footnote there so that readers can see the full citation if they are interested, even though you explicitly state most of the information. In an academic paper, you might not do that, but for the purposes of an encyclopedia article, go ahead and cite liberally.
In the Cyborg section, the line that includes "all of our interactions with technology could qualify as a cyborg" should be revised to be third person. You could say something like "all human interaction with technology" and build from there. In that section, you rely on one source multiple times. It doesn't read like an argument, but it does seem one-sided as opposed to a consensus by the research community. You might add additional citations here, but there is also the need to balance the section length with the fact that there is already an article about cyborgs out there. So really, what you're doing is giving an overview of the cyborg article with emphasis on the points that are most relevant to cyborg anthropology and then a link to that article.
At the end of the line that discusses Amber Case's claim that "humans are already cyborgs because our daily life and sense of self is so intertwined with technology," you should take a look at the reference again and consider citing a specific page where the author makes that claim. In the references cited section, you'll want to be as specific as possible whenever possible. General book references can go in the further reading section.
In the section re: differences between digital and cyborg anthropology, you should go ahead and link to the digital anthropology article. For the subsequent sections on key concepts and research, you can also link to the relevant Wikipedia article for each concept.
Overall, I think you've done a great job improving the article, and the additional references are a great addition. I look forward to seeing your revisions live!
Tburress (talk) 23:46, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
Wow, just by reading the article i can see the amount of effort you put in your work, I am amazed by the amount of knowledge in this article. even though i have no previous experience with Cyborg Anthropology but i can still pick up a tremendous amount of information in your work.
In your cyborg section, your used the same citation three times, you could try to find some other information to cite, you could also include a section on movies or comic that include cyborg or anything to do with Cyborg Anthropology. i feel that will bring more interest point to readers.
i really liked your article, i feel it is definitively better than the original article.
masonzhang98 (talk) 12:00, 3 February 2017 (UTC)