Difference between revisions of "Talk:Bias in Everyday Appliances"
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
===== Peer Review (by: Hayley Cho) ===== | ===== Peer Review (by: Hayley Cho) ===== | ||
| − | The length of this article hits the minimum requirement of 1000 words, and is clearly structured into different subtopics. This article includes the 3 major components of a good article as well. The introductory paragraph gives an informative summary of what biases are and how they arise in everyday appliances. It serves as a gateway to introduce the next subtopic, which goes in depth on the different types of biases. There are several body paragraphs that explain in further detail the examples that the article discusses, such as facial and speech recognition, medical devices, and soap dispensers. One thing that could be done to improve this section is expanding upon the types of biases mentioned, and explaining how these connect to everyday appliances. The use of references is consistent throughout the article, and I do not see any room for areas of improvement regarding references. The issue at hand is very clear and delivered well throughout the article, with strong and informative points being mentioned. Although the concept of bias addresses the ethical issue of this topic, one possible suggestion is to include how these biases have an effect on society. The article is written in an objective manner, and the author does not include any personal opinions. It does not state any points that could be interpreted as making an argument, rather it simply describes a controversy about the biases in everyday appliances. Overall, this article does a great job of informing the reader about the different types of biases in everyday appliances, incorporating the use of specific examples and references. | + | The length of this article hits the minimum requirement of 1000 words, and is clearly structured into different subtopics. This article includes the 3 major components of a good article as well. The introductory paragraph gives an informative summary of what biases are and how they arise in everyday appliances. It serves as a gateway to introduce the next subtopic, which goes in depth on the different types of biases. There are several body paragraphs that explain in further detail the examples that the article discusses, such as facial and speech recognition, medical devices, and soap dispensers. One thing that could be done to improve this section is expanding upon the types of biases mentioned, and explaining how these connect to everyday appliances. The use of references is consistent throughout the article, and I do not see any room for areas of improvement regarding references. The issue at hand is very clear and delivered well throughout the article, with strong and informative points being mentioned. Although the concept of bias addresses the ethical issue of this topic, one possible suggestion is to include how these biases have an effect on society. The article is written in an objective manner, and the author does not include any personal opinions. It does not state any points that could be interpreted as making an argument, rather it simply describes a controversy about the biases in everyday appliances. Overall, this article does a great job of informing the reader about the different types of biases in everyday appliances, incorporating the use of specific examples and references to strengthen the article. |
Latest revision as of 22:26, 2 February 2023
Peer Review (by: Hayley Cho)
The length of this article hits the minimum requirement of 1000 words, and is clearly structured into different subtopics. This article includes the 3 major components of a good article as well. The introductory paragraph gives an informative summary of what biases are and how they arise in everyday appliances. It serves as a gateway to introduce the next subtopic, which goes in depth on the different types of biases. There are several body paragraphs that explain in further detail the examples that the article discusses, such as facial and speech recognition, medical devices, and soap dispensers. One thing that could be done to improve this section is expanding upon the types of biases mentioned, and explaining how these connect to everyday appliances. The use of references is consistent throughout the article, and I do not see any room for areas of improvement regarding references. The issue at hand is very clear and delivered well throughout the article, with strong and informative points being mentioned. Although the concept of bias addresses the ethical issue of this topic, one possible suggestion is to include how these biases have an effect on society. The article is written in an objective manner, and the author does not include any personal opinions. It does not state any points that could be interpreted as making an argument, rather it simply describes a controversy about the biases in everyday appliances. Overall, this article does a great job of informing the reader about the different types of biases in everyday appliances, incorporating the use of specific examples and references to strengthen the article.
