Talk:Autocorrection Software

Peer review by Jesse Moreira:

Overall, your article about autocorrection software was good, with the only major issue being the length. Your article was about 2160 words long, so you will need to add more to it to get closer to 3000.

You met all of the requirements for the structure of the article. Your introductory section does a good job defining and giving context for autocorrect, as well as presenting some of its benefits. I also liked that you mentioned that there are different ways that autocorrect works.

Your article also had a good body which covered a variety of aspects of autocorrection software. You provide a good background for auto correction software in the history section of the article. I like the section “Types of Autocorrection and Spell-Checker Software,” as it shows how autocorrect can be different across different types of software programs. Listing out the different features in Word, Google Docs, etc. shows that autocorrect is more than just correcting typos, as it can also fix capitalization, and predict what someone is going to type. The section about Grammarly also shows that this type of technology can go as far as to detect the tone of someone’s writing and how formal they come off. The “Pop Culture” section accurately describes the more humorous side of how people perceive autocorrect. However, this section does feel very short compared to the rest of the sections.

The ethical issues surrounding autocorrection software are made clear in your “Ethical Implications” section. However, the beginning of it where you mention the Amazon recruiting system felt unnecessary. Although you did mention that it is similar to the issue of bias in autocorrection software, it still felt out of place and irrelevant to the article. The individual sections about the ethical issues were good, however. When I first saw the title of your article, the issue of racial bias was the first ethical issue that came to mind. You were able to address this issue well by citing a scholarly article and providing examples of bias, such as when non-Anglo names are underlined in documents. I think that you could add on to this section by talking about how different dialects of English might be interpreted as “incorrect” by this type of software, such as AAVE (African-American Vernacular English). The other section about predictive text was also good, and brought up issues about autocorrection software that I never even thought of. Even though the idea of “personalized cliches” was something I never heard of, you were able to explain it well enough so that I could learn what it is and why it is an issue, since it has a negative effect on how we think.

You used a good amount of reliable references for the amount of information that you presented in your article. There was also good variety, with sources like informational websites about technology, newspapers such as the New York Times and Wired, and the official websites of the specific autocorrection technologies mentioned in your article. However, I think that instead of using a Wikipedia article as a reference, you should instead use the references that the Wikipedia article uses.

You maintain a neutral point of view throughout the article, and there was never a point where I thought you were stating your personal opinion. You included multiple viewpoints regarding autocorrection software, including the benefits of it, as well as the ethical issues that arise with it. You also provide a source whenever these different viewpoints are presented, so that it does not come off as your own view.

Overall, your article covered the topic of autocorrection software well. You covered a variety of ways this software is used, and also addressed the ethical issues of it. The main suggestion I have is to make the article longer. You could maybe make it longer by adding more to the history section or the pop culture section. I also noticed you did not finish that part of the Grammarly section about the user editor section, so adding on to that will definitely add length to your article. As I suggested earlier, you could add more to the section about racial bias, or maybe you could even find another ethical issue regarding autocorrection software to write about. Also remember to add some form of media (such as a picture) with a caption. For example, you could add a screenshot of Apple’s autocorrect or predictive text.