Talk:Social dossiers: Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
No edit summary |
No edit summary |
||
| (One intermediate revision by the same user not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
*There should be a link to the topic description. | *<Not sure where to link...>There should be a link to the topic description. | ||
*<Corrected: 16+>There need to be more links, perhaps two dozen instead of one dozen. (was having difficulty finding quality articles that were not duplicates of existing stories...) | *<Corrected: 16+>There need to be more links, perhaps two dozen instead of one dozen. (was having difficulty finding quality articles that were not duplicates of existing stories...) | ||
*{identification of issues} Some, e.g., use in hiring. But the study guide says very little about it; you have to follow the links. | *<Corrected: added more discussion>{identification of issues} Some, e.g., use in hiring. But the study guide says very little about it; you have to follow the links. | ||
*Differing viewpoints are not really identified, unless you read the articles linked to. | *<Corrected: incorporated into discussion>Differing viewpoints are not really identified, unless you read the articles linked to. | ||
*<Corrected: revised link categories>"Articles of interest" is too vague; one of the headings should certainly be "Job Hunting" | *<Corrected: revised link categories>"Articles of interest" is too vague; one of the headings should certainly be "Job Hunting" | ||
*{identification of issues} It probably mentions them somewhere, but does not really identify them as ethical issues. | *<Corrected>{identification of issues} It probably mentions them somewhere, but does not really identify them as ethical issues. | ||
*The study guide does not read as a narrative, but rather as a set of related paragraphs. There should be topic sentences, explaining why lists of issues have been aggregated together. | *<Corrected>The study guide does not read as a narrative, but rather as a set of related paragraphs. There should be topic sentences, explaining why lists of issues have been aggregated together. | ||
Latest revision as of 03:30, 5 August 2008
- <Not sure where to link...>There should be a link to the topic description.
- <Corrected: 16+>There need to be more links, perhaps two dozen instead of one dozen. (was having difficulty finding quality articles that were not duplicates of existing stories...)
- <Corrected: added more discussion>{identification of issues} Some, e.g., use in hiring. But the study guide says very little about it; you have to follow the links.
- <Corrected: incorporated into discussion>Differing viewpoints are not really identified, unless you read the articles linked to.
- <Corrected: revised link categories>"Articles of interest" is too vague; one of the headings should certainly be "Job Hunting"
- <Corrected>{identification of issues} It probably mentions them somewhere, but does not really identify them as ethical issues.
- <Corrected>The study guide does not read as a narrative, but rather as a set of related paragraphs. There should be topic sentences, explaining why lists of issues have been aggregated together.