Difference between revisions of "Talk:James Benjey"
(Peer review by Angelica Tome) |
|||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| − | Peer Review by Angelica Tome | + | Peer Review by Angelica Tome<br /> |
| − | '''Seriousness of purpose''' | + | |
| − | - Compared publicly available and private data to understand relationship bw physical and digital self | + | '''Seriousness of purpose'''<br /> |
| − | - It requires elaboration of findings and what James’s data indepentity looks at when he searches his name on different search engines and/or social media platforms. | + | |
| − | - The conclusion is repetitive and does not sum up the conclusion of analysis on James’s data identity. | + | - Compared publicly available and private data to understand relationship bw physical and digital self<br /> |
| − | '''Quality of Writing''' | + | |
| − | - Great outline of what is in this essay (the three categories) in the beginning. | + | - It requires elaboration of findings and what James’s data indepentity looks at when he searches his name on different search engines and/or social media platforms. <br /> |
| + | |||
| + | - The conclusion is repetitive and does not sum up the conclusion of analysis on James’s data identity. <br /> | ||
| + | |||
| + | '''Quality of Writing'''<br /> | ||
| + | |||
| + | - Great outline of what is in this essay (the three categories) in the beginning.<br /> | ||
| + | |||
- As I continue to read the draft, it seems incomplete due to the overwhelming amount of bullet points. It does not seem to fully analyze his findings, but rather talks about the data public and private that generally is found when looking something up. The central argument of this draft is not focused on James’s online data identity. | - As I continue to read the draft, it seems incomplete due to the overwhelming amount of bullet points. It does not seem to fully analyze his findings, but rather talks about the data public and private that generally is found when looking something up. The central argument of this draft is not focused on James’s online data identity. | ||
Revision as of 12:34, 22 February 2021
Peer Review by Angelica Tome
Seriousness of purpose
- Compared publicly available and private data to understand relationship bw physical and digital self
- It requires elaboration of findings and what James’s data indepentity looks at when he searches his name on different search engines and/or social media platforms.
- The conclusion is repetitive and does not sum up the conclusion of analysis on James’s data identity.
Quality of Writing
- Great outline of what is in this essay (the three categories) in the beginning.
- As I continue to read the draft, it seems incomplete due to the overwhelming amount of bullet points. It does not seem to fully analyze his findings, but rather talks about the data public and private that generally is found when looking something up. The central argument of this draft is not focused on James’s online data identity.
