Talk:Digital divide in Nepal

This redirect is within the scope of WikiProject Internet, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Internet on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.InternetWikipedia:WikiProject InternetTemplate:WikiProject InternetInternet

Nepal

This redirect is within the scope of WikiProject Nepal, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Nepal-related topics. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page and add your name to the member's list.NepalWikipedia:WikiProject NepalTemplate:WikiProject NepalNepal

Review

  First of all, excellent work on beginning your work on the outline and sources list. As you move forward into the drafting process, I would recommend having each group member type their name next to the section on which they are working. Please also make sure that all of your work is going into the group sandbox space. I am also including a link to the Digital Divide in South Africa page. This is an excellent example of about how much you should be writing for each section, though obviously your sections will likely not be identical to the South African ones. [Divide in South Africa]
   Remember, if you need any extra help come to mine or Dr. Benoit's office hours. Again, great job on the beginning work to your project.

Mmaggi9 (talk) 17:37, 11 October 2017 (UTC) Melanie Maggio: TA for LIS 2000[reply]

Group Comments for the Draft

I would recommend first writing a brief lead. Your lead should explain the digital divide as well as a few of the specific issues in Nepal. The other information you currently have is great, but it seems that it would fall under the definitions section of your article. Make sure that your are keeping to your outline and have definitive sections to work under. You will also want to make sure that your article is focused on solely on the digital divide in Nepal. Make sure you are finishing your first draft this week, and please contact Dr. Benoit and I if you have any questions.

Mmaggi9 (talk) 03:23, 17 October 2017 (UTC) Melanie Maggio: TA for LIS 2000[reply]

–––Hey Melanie. Do you suggest we remove the definition portion from my lead section? Or just add to it? Mtho273 (talk) 00:37, 18 October 2017 (UTC)mtho273[reply]

–––Also, would this source be appropriate to gather information on demographics?

  http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0970389610001084 Mtho273 (talk)mtho273

--- My suggestion would be to shorten the definition and make sure that you are specifically referencing Nepal. You want to make sure that your entire page always deals with the digital divide in Nepal. You don't need to have a definition of the way the digital divide affects the world. The same goes with your history section. You can have a paragraph that speaks about the history of Nepal, but make sure that it has a purpose in explaining the digital divide there. Also, yes that is an excellent source for y'all to use! Let me know if there are any other questions, and I hope this helped. Mmaggi9 (talk) 00:29, 19 October 2017 (UTC) Melanie Maggio: TA for LIS 2000[reply]

Additional comments

Looking at the page on Monday morning, and this draft is really well put together. It looks like it is ready for peer review. Eabenoit (talk) 15:48, 23 October 2017 (UTC)eabenoit[reply]

Peer Review

The section flow is good and the sources y'all used look reliable as well. The only issues I really noticed were small things like capitalizing the word "internet" a few times and a little bit of redundancy in language. I would suggest rewording some of the sections because they read a bit choppy and simple. The lead section was good but also needs some adjustment, as it gives too much information about the country itself and is less focused on the digital divide specifically. In the section about internet usage, it might also be beneficial to reference the name of the study instead of just saying, "A research study...". This will help give more credibility to your statement and come off as less vague. Other than a few minor fixes I think the article is great! VDised1 (talk) 01:23, 26 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Peer Review

Lead Section: Very good lead section in my opinion, it gives a good description of what the digital divide is and it also give you some background information about the topic.

Internet section: Strong section, you laid out the fact in a clear and understandable way and it was not too wordy for the reader to lose interest

Economic Possibilities: Another strong section the only thing I have a question/concern about that you may want to check out: is that most of the content on computers is written in English I’m pretty sure you can change the language on the computers to whatever language you speak but again not sure just something to look into. Other than that I liked the rural areas and cities section the only thing I would maybe do different is talk about the cities more.

Bridging the Divide: I like how you used digital literacy as a way to bridge the gap because that is something that plays a huge role in closing the gap that all countries face not just Nepal.

For the solutions section I think you could add some more to it seems a little short but maybe that was all the information yall could find just something to check into other than that another good section

Lead section- Very good lead section thought it gave a clear description of the topic and also presented some facts about it

Structure- I thought the set up of everything was fine in the bridging the divide section you could maybe combine the two sections because digital literacy could also be a solution

Neutral Content- in my opinion yall kept with the neural content of Wikipedia and kept it unbiased

Overall: Thought it was a very good article it gave clear details and facts about it while remaining unbiased at the same time if you touch on the few things I mentioned I think it will be a great article, I did not notice any grammar issues but I am also not very good at that. Devinhoffmann15 (talk) 20:39, 26 October 2017 (UTC)Dhoffmann[reply]

Peer Review Everything seems relevant, no distractions. The outline is set up very well; it's a good order. No word choices or phrasings stand out as not being neutral. There doesn't appear to be any biased claims. No viewpoints seem over represented. In fact, it might not hurt to go a little more in depth on all the article sections. All the material is cited by reliable sources; the links seem to work.

Peer Review - Elizabeth Jee

Key: ** = grammar edit

Digital Divide in Nepal: A digital divide can be defined as the break between people of a certain area that do and do not have access to technology. ** Nepal is located between China and India, and is home to approximately 30,000,000 people.** Only 11 percent of the Nepal's population uses or has access to the internet, according to The Kathmandu Post in 2014.** Government officials and higher powers (maybe another wording for "higher powers") of Nepal are tediously searching for ways to repair the digital divide. ** Some districts have started making internet access more available to their community;[4] while others districts are implementing programs to help educate their community on computer technology. **

Internet Usage: Remove factors that do not have an effect on the internet access - only include factors that are relevant** Further research concluded that over half the Internet users in Nepal use the Internet for .... **

Rural areas v. cities: Because Nepal is an underdeveloped country, the government usually focuses their resources on important necessities such as clean water, roads, and healthcare. ** Most of the technology is mainly available for those who live in the cities, although most of Nepal's population is rural. **

Digital Literacy: Digital literacy in today's time is crucial to keep up with the fast-paced world. **

Overall, the content is good! Some things could be worded to be more concise. Great draft! Tone was educational and neutral. There was a good flow of logical content.

Peer review