Difference between revisions of "Talk:Electronics Right to Repair"
| Line 20: | Line 20: | ||
==Objective Reporting== | ==Objective Reporting== | ||
| − | There are only facts backed up by reliable sources and no personal opinions in the article. The author also includes the viewpoints of both the supporting and dissenting sides of the issue. Moving forward, the author could include quotes or specific situations of each side to allow the reader to have a greater understanding of both views. For example, the author mentions in the introduction how the dissenting view says the right to repair can compromise security features. In the opposition section, the author | + | There are only facts backed up by reliable sources and no personal opinions in the article. The author also includes the viewpoints of both the supporting and dissenting sides of the issue. Moving forward, the author could include quotes or specific situations of each side to allow the reader to have a greater understanding of both views. For example, the author mentions in the introduction how the dissenting view says the right to repair can compromise security features. In the opposition section, the author could discuss a specific security feature and the effects of it being compromised. |
Revision as of 20:22, 3 February 2023
Contents
Length
The article is over well over 1000 words and fulfills the requirement for length. The article also seems well organized based on its headers and has good depth into different viewpoints.
Structure
The article meets the requirements for having an opening paragraph that summarizes the issue, body paragraphs in one or more sections, and statements that are backed up by plenty of reliable sources.
Introduction Paragraph
The introduction paragraph does a very good job at describing the movement of electronic rights to repair as well as introducing those for and against it. The author may find it helpful to briefly summarize the beginnings of the movement by including information on the event that caused the movement to be started as well as introducing the people who are leading the charge to fight for the movement today. By including this, the reader may get additional perspective on the supporters of the right and how long they have been fighting for it.
Body Paragraphs
There is ample detail in the body paragraphs to explain the benefits of the movement and the context within the United States. I can also see the author is drafting a subsection on opposition to the issue as well. The author also provides specific statistics and information regarding each subsection, which is great for allowing the reader to understand the range of the issue at hand. The author could consider adding personal accounts or stories of people who have struggled without the right to repair to allow people to further understand the supporting viewpoints. This would be particularly helpful in the "ensure accessible and affordable repairs" subsection.
Clarity
The author provides a great, in-depth introduction of the issue at hand and the article is well organized. The subsections make it very clear what ethical issues are being discussed and their importance.
Objective Reporting
There are only facts backed up by reliable sources and no personal opinions in the article. The author also includes the viewpoints of both the supporting and dissenting sides of the issue. Moving forward, the author could include quotes or specific situations of each side to allow the reader to have a greater understanding of both views. For example, the author mentions in the introduction how the dissenting view says the right to repair can compromise security features. In the opposition section, the author could discuss a specific security feature and the effects of it being compromised.
