User talk:Aumgirl2024/Draft Argumentative Paper

Introduction: I like how you explained the nature of Wikipedia and why it is said to be unreliable in general terms.

Content: You talked about how errors can be almost instantly fixed. I know that there are errors that go unnoticed, but for the ones that are, couldn't you talk about how this increases Wikipedia's reliability? Also, I think it was smart to tackle the issue of the gender gap. The statistic helps support that idea as well. I was unaware of the different types of biases and how those could be applied here. You gave good examples of what those meant and why this is a problem in the Wikipedia community.

Opposing thought: I see how you are talking about how Wikipedia can be used in a beneficial way, despite its flaws. This is important because it shows the readers how it is actually credibly for the most part.

Sources: All of the sources are from peer reviewed articles. I feel like there could be more quotes inside the text to help support your argument. I only see one place where there is a direct quote. Other than that, I'm not sure if you indirectly quoted the other sources, but that could help make you argument stronger. It also provides for more discussion.

My overall thoughts: I think that this is a good start. I can see an argument forming. I see that Wikipedia is struggling with the issue of gender equality and this is bringing awareness to the readers. You still have a stance arguing how Wikipedia is credible, which can encourage readers to help the gender gap, making it more reliable.

Stacy.johnson515 (talk) 16:27, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

Peer Review Subzero10

Subzero10 I like your introduction sentenced and I like the word choice you used. I clearly know by your introduction sentence what this article will be about and the topics you will cover . I noticed you talk about wikipedia being reliable and the gender gap to so you have two topics but you added it in very good . I like how your sources are covering your information throughout your paper which should be easy to keep covering your information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Subzero10 (talk • contribs)

Some notes

• There is an ongoing debate"--it would be nice if you could cite something that says this is actually so, and not just with Wikipedia
• Not all online databases are open ("since anyone has the ability to edit")--in fact, most are not. WebMD is not, Britannica is not, and the Encyclopedia of Alabama is not. So you need to be clear about what really your topic is, especially if you jump to the gender gap in the next sentence--and then back to reliability in the second paragraph. I can't help but think you are not making an argument about online databases or the gender gap, but about the reliability of one particular database--one that anyone can edit. Dr Aaij (talk) 16:43, 12 April 2021 (UTC)