User talk:Haizhen Sun
| This user is a student editor in University_of_Washington/Building_Successful_Online_Communities_(Fall_2024) . |
Hello
[edit]Hii Haizhen!! My name is Ruinan Wang and you can call me Rina. I am also from China and majoring in marketing and public relations. Looking forward to see u next week! Ruinan Wang (talk) 22:20, 5 October 2024 (UTC)
Welcome!
[edit]Hello, Haizhen Sun, and welcome to Wikipedia! My name is Ian and I work with Wiki Education; I help support students who are editing as part of a class assignment.
I hope you enjoy editing here. If you haven't already done so, please check out the student training library, which introduces you to editing and Wikipedia's core principles. You may also want to check out the Teahouse, a community of Wikipedia editors dedicated to helping new users. Below are some resources to help you get started editing.
Handouts
|
|---|
|
Additional Resources
|
|
If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to contact me on my talk page. Ian (Wiki Ed) (talk) 16:28, 9 October 2024 (UTC)
Choosing an article
[edit]I looked at the articles you listed as options on User:Haizhen Sun/Choose an Article and, honestly, I think all of them are too developed. I urged you to pick a "stub" article because those article are poorly developed and there is lots of room to grow. I'm going to assess you on whether you have raised the article a full quality class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale and my sense is that will be hard with the batch of articles you've listed. This is particularly the case with design studies (which is c-class) and visual communication. All of the other articles are Start-class. I think working with a start-class article is possible but it will be more work than it needs to be.
My advice would be to find a true stub article—maybe 1-2 paragraphs of text max and maybe 3-4 references max. An article like this will be easy to improve! And there are literally millions of them to choose from! —mako๛ 23:31, 13 October 2024 (UTC)
Peer Review - Megan Spurr
[edit]Hi Haizhen, I appreciate the work you did on the accessibility apps wiki! My notes are on the peer review page, and I am happy to discuss any of the notes I provided if there are any questions! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Meganisrad (talk • contribs) 04:46, 1 November 2024 (UTC)
Peer Review - Ruinan Wang
[edit]Hi Haizhen, it's my pleasure to write the peer review for your articles! You really did a nice job and I learned a lot about Accessibility Apps, which was really exciting! Here are some of my suggestions that I hope can make your article better.
- Lead
1. "A basic example is that a person who experiences vision impairments is able to access technology through enabling voice recognition and text-to-speech software," seems unnecessary in the lead section. Consider moving it to a later section of the article.
- Content
1. The History of Apps section doesn’t seem essential. It covers mobile app history in detail, which doesn’t directly support the topic of Accessibility Apps, so it might be less helpful.
2. Instead of History of Apps, focusing more on History of Accessible Technology would add more relevant weight. Currently, the two sections are imbalanced, and this shift would help.
3. For "Strain (2015)," a title or simple introduction is needed for clarity, as it’s currently a bit confusing.
4. In the section, "Low-level coding—extremely complex yet incredibly customizable. This software creation process is expensive and time-consuming, but you can do just about everything with it," it’s best to add context, such as explaining that it’s a computer function, as it feels unclear and out of place.
5. In the Benefits section, the sentence, "The benefits of new technology go beyond accessibility apps. Teachers have found that new technology has made learning material more accessible to students, and in turn, increased the number of students able to enroll in university courses," can cause logical confusion. The previous and following sentences focus on the benefits for people with disabilities, but this sentence discusses general students in education.
6. The "Discriminative aspects of technology" section uses a lot of text to introduce how new technology has a negative impact on social development, but the topic of this article "Accessibility apps" is not mentioned until the fifth paragraph.
- Sources and References:
1. The "AI and accessibility" you added is very good content, but the citation source is too single. Over-reliance on a large amount of text information from a single source may affect the neutrality of the article.
- Overall impressions:
1. You have made a lot of edits to the article, making it richer, and also deleted many inaccurate and imprecise contents.
2. I think it would be better if the content and logic of the article could be more in line with the topic of the article.
3. And if there is content you want to add, it is important to cite a variety of reliable sources. Ruinan Wang (talk) 21:01, 30 October 2024 (UTC)
You changes to the Accessibility apps page
[edit]@Haizhen Sun: I noticed that a bunch of the new text you added was reverted by MrOllie almost 10 days ago [1]. I agree with his assessment in regards to both the style and the sourcing (WP:UNDUE).
Do you understand what the issues are? Do you know how to fix it? If you don't, you can either discuss it with me (I'm happy to guide you) or you can raise any lingering questions you have with MrOllie (the editor who reverted you). —mako๛ 01:15, 6 November 2024 (UTC)
Thank you for your peer review
[edit]Hi @Haizhen Sun, thank you for peer reviewing the article (Non-paternity event). I appreciate your advice on editing the introduction to the page to make it more clear for readers. I will also look at the ISOGG page to make how one could have an NPE. I also agree that adding more information the technologies for paternity testing would be a positive addition to the article. Thanks for the recommendations! Betty Cohn (talk) 00:13, 7 November 2024 (UTC)