Talk:Thinkful
 | This article has not yet been rated on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. |
 | This article was the subject of an educational assignment in Spring 2015. Further details were available on the "Education Program:Nanyang Technological University/ Information Technology (Spring 2015)" page, which is now unavailable on the wiki. |
Review for Bloc (code school) article by See Kai Lin, Tan Yi Ying, Yeo Jing Ying
Structure Proper headings were appropriately adopted to aid readers in locating selective information more easily e.g. history of Bloc, courses offered, scholarships and references. Formatting was appropriate, well structured with clear headings and subheadings. However, do note that only the first word of headers are to be capitalised. For example, "New Relic Diversity Scholarship in Software Development and Design" should be "New relic diversity scholarship in software development and design" instead.
Citations Citations were done up appropriately with raised reliability of the information provided. Citations were also easy to verify through the links provided. Due credits were provided with a substantial and adequate list of sources. Could be better if there were more citations from independent sources as most sources come from Bloc’s own website currently.
Visual Aids Adoption of visual aids such as diagrams and images can enhance the visual aspects so as to provide readers a clearer content. Visual aids also serve to make the article more interesting and interactive.
Language Information provided was clear, succinct and well-developed. Whilst the article is nicely written in a proficient and easy to read format, the tone of the article can be further worked upon in a more neutral manner to suit Wikipedia’s writing style. It is of utmost importance to constantly bear in mind that the composition of the article must be from a neutral point of view, such that biases towards any area is minimised. Better phrasings could be adopted in some sentences (avoid writing like an advertisement) e.g. instead of “Targeted at the U.S. military veterans, this scholarship aims to help by equipping the U.S. veterans with the necessary tools to launch their tech careers.”, consider “The scholarship aims to allow U.S. veterans to improve their tech careers…” More information can also be provided regarding this scholarship instead of using vague terms such as “tools”. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jingyingyeo (talk • contribs) 14:54, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
Bloc (code school) review[edit]
Review for Bloc (code school) article by See Kai Lin, Tan Yi Ying, Yeo Jing Ying
Structure Proper headings were appropriately adopted to aid readers in locating selective information more easily e.g. history of Bloc, courses offered, scholarships and references. Formatting was appropriate, well structured with clear headings and subheadings. However, do note that only the first word of headers are to be capitalised. For example, "New Relic Diversity Scholarship in Software Development and Design" should be "New relic diversity scholarship in software development and design" instead.
Citations Citations were done up appropriately with raised reliability of the information provided. Citations were also easy to verify through the links provided. Due credits were provided with a substantial and adequate list of sources. Could be better if there were more citations from independent sources as most sources come from Bloc’s own website currently.
Visual Aids Adoption of visual aids such as diagrams and images can enhance the visual aspects so as to provide readers a clearer content. Visual aids also serve to make the article more interesting and interactive.
Language Information provided was clear, succinct and well-developed. Whilst the article is nicely written in a proficient and easy to read format, the tone of the article can be further worked upon in a more neutral manner to suit Wikipedia’s writing style. It is of utmost importance to constantly bear in mind that the composition of the article must be from a neutral point of view, such that biases towards any area is minimised. Better phrasings could be adopted in some sentences (avoid writing like an advertisement) e.g. instead of “Targeted at the U.S. military veterans, this scholarship aims to help by equipping the U.S. veterans with the necessary tools to launch their tech careers.”, consider “The scholarship aims to allow U.S. veterans to improve their tech careers…” More information can also be provided regarding this scholarship instead of using vague terms such as “tools”.
Jingyingyeo (talk) 14:55, 24 April 2015 (UTC)