Talk:Child care indicator

Untitled

First, what does the article do well? Is there anything from your review that impressed you? Any turn of phrase that described the subject in a clear way?

Having a lot of citations is excellent for your Wikipedia article, a lot of issues with putting content in the mainspace was they wanted multiple academic sources talking about the topic. Good job taking the time to put multiple sources and continue this when you put more information. You also did a great job at giving concrete facts and not using pervasive language. Your article was a great read, I really nit picked things and just added some suggestions I thought were helpful.

What changes would you suggest the author apply to the article? Why would those changes be an improvement?

I am a little unclear about what your topic is called. If it is child care indicators, you want to mention that in the first sentence and have it bolded (this was recommended in our training). I would also talk about where these indicators are available, is it open to the public, can anyone access it? Your headings do not need to be capitalized all the way through, ex. Positive development, Standards of quality. When mentioning organizations like OECD I would include a hyperlink to those wikipedia pages, the code for it is [[]] brackets with the name inside.

Under the barriers sub section you talk about a lack of guidelines for curriculum development. Talking about how ECEC does not equally represent children and families equally would be really interesting to talk about more, maybe its own sub-section.

Maybe provide a historical context for the page, talk about when the first data was collected for child care facilities and what were the first indicators brought forward?

Lastly, when you mention the data is collected by child care facilities and other child care situations. Maybe touch more on what facilities and situations, sorry if this may seem obvious but I know nothing about child care facilities so it would be helpful to be clearer on this.

What's the most important thing the author could do to improve the article?

Overall, I know you are still getting it ready for the mainspace so just continue adding more content, think about the questions we look at when observing data in class and continue providing a lot of sources like you have. Your article is off to an amazing start!

Did you notice anything about the article you reviewed that could be applicable to your own article?

I got mine deleted from the mainspace for lack of sources so I could learn a thing or two from how many sources you included haha. I hope my review was helpful.

Sorry I forgot to sign my name BrittanieJonidi (talk) 23:36, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

Article Evaluation

Data Broker

Is everything in the article relevant to the article topic? Is there anything that distracted you?

All of the information is related to the topic, though the very first section suggests that my search was re-routed through the term Information Broker. I assume that this is due to the fact that there is more than one title for this practice, and Wikipedia has consolidated the information.

Is the article neutral? Are there any claims, or frames, that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?

The atricle seems to present the information as neutrally as possible. The very nature of the practice of data (or information) brokerage is unpleasant for the individuals whose data is being collected and distributed, but there is nothing in the article that alludes to it.

Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?

I was unable to locate any instances of any viewpoints at all. The article describes what a data information broker does without using any language that would indicate an unfair viewpoint. There is a section entitled Criticisms. Perhaps there could exist a counter to this section somehow, though I am not sure what it would be. The Criticisms section contains only factual information about criticisms of data and information brokerage.

Check a few citations. Do the links work? Does the source support the claims in the article?

I checked seven of the 15 sources listed. All the links I tried worked, and the information they linked to were related to the content of the material on the Wikipedia page. I read 3 of the articles I clicked on and they all contained information that the Wikipedia entry claimed that they contained.

Is each fact referenced with an appropriate, reliable reference? Where does the information come from? Are these neutral sources? If biased, is that bias noted?

All of the facts listed are referenced. Though there is a flag at the top of this page indicating that there are not sufficient inline citations. It seems to me that there are quite a few of these, and so I wonder if this template has just not been updates recently. Being so new and inexperienced with Wikipedia, I don't feel like I have the experience to determine whether or not this is in fact the case. The sources that are listed are a combination of articles and reports from independent, non-partisan, not-for-profit agencies and government reports. In both cases, I was able to find information about the organizations and what their goals were easily, and nothing appeared to be too terribly biased. If pressed, I could say that the independent sources were clearly advocating against the use of data brokerage, while the government sites seemed to be advocating for control over this area, rather than it's elimination.

Is any information out of date? Is anything missing that could be added?

Knowing as little as I do about the topic, I wasn't able to come up with any information that was missing. It might prove to be a more balanced entry if there was some information that came directly from a Data or Information Brokerage organization. This way, we could be sure we are hearing from at least two sides of the discussion

Check out the Talk page of the article. What kinds of conversations, if any, are going on behind the scenes about how to represent this topic?

The only discussion is regarding the fact that the information presented is US-centric. Th reply indicates that the majority of brokerage companies are American, and welcomes the addition of more global information.

How is the article rated? Is it a part of any WikiProjects?

The article has several Ratings:

°High-Importance and Start-Class ratings for Occupations Articles

°Low-Importance for Business Articles

Both Occupations and Business Articles are WikiProjects

How does the way Wikipedia discusses this topic differ from the way we've talked about it in class?

While we haven't thoroughly discussed this topic in class yet, I imagine we will include some discussion about the ways that this practice affects real lived lives, and what impact it has on how we choose to interact online. I also feel that our class discussion will head in a much more biased direction, as we are the individuals whose data is being collected and sold, and we have opinions on that topic, which will be investigated.

Undergradmom76 (talk) 18:29, 20 September 2017 (UTC)