# data[].attributes.headline
Team 1 (Aloysius, Bryan, Chenrui, Joylynn, Jinqi)

# data[].attributes.subject
Team 1 (Aloysius, Bryan, Chenrui, Joylynn, Jinqi)

# data[].attributes.body
Report 1 (Fake News):

Overall mark: B- (letter grade)

Pros: (list at least 3 things)

1. Clear logical flow in report

2. Tying back to the case study

3. Headings to mark out each portion of the report

Cons: (list at least 3 things)

1. Never put page number at the bottom of each page

2. Did not follow APA referencing style

3. Only used one example to push through the point of fake news being a problem in society

4. Missing purpose sentence

How would you improve? (list at least 1 thing)

1. Put more elaboration

2. Use more than one case study (preferably a global one)

Report 2 (Data Ethics):

Overall mark: B+ (letter grade)

Pros: (list at least 3 things)

1. Usage of statistics to support points

2. Gave a bigger (Global) picture with the example

3. Put page numbering a the bottom

Cons: (list at least 3 things)

1. Can include general headings to complement the sub-headings

2. The sub-headings can be clearer and more concise

3. Too much usage of examples, quoted too much and little personal analysis given (add more own thoughts)

4. Citation formatting can be better

5. Missing purpose sentence

How would you improve? (list at least 1 thing)

1. Improve formatting (Spacing, headers, etc.) in general

2. Add more personal thoughts

3. Put citation at the point where it is used

Report 3 (AI):

Overall mark: A (letter grade)

Pros: (list at least 3 things)

1. Executive Summary gives an overview of what is going be covered

2. Relevant Case study and analysis on the TikTok

3. Proper citation format

4. Appendix for illustration purposes

Cons: (list at least 3 things)

1. Instead of putting “Refer to Appendix B….”, the group could have directly put the images in their report for easier viewing.

2. Missing purpose sentence

3. Conclusion paragraph is not at the end of the report

How would you improve? (list at least 1 thing)

1. Put the conclusion paragraph at the end

2. Put the images in the report

3. Put a purpose statement in the executive summary

# data[].attributes.body
Report 1:
Overall mark: XX (letter grade)
Pros: (list at least 3 things)
Cons: (list at least 3 things)
How would you improve? (list at least 1 thing)

Report 2:
Overall mark: YY (letter grade)
Pros: (list at least 3 things)
Cons: (list at least 3 things)
How would you improve? (list at least 1 thing)

Report 3:
Overall mark: ZZ (letter grade)
Pros: (list at least 3 things)
Cons: (list at least 3 things)
How would you improve? (list at least 1 thing)

# data[].attributes.body
report 1:
⁃ overall mark: C
⁃ pros:
⁃ conclusion was good
⁃ fair recollection and analysis of events that occurred
⁃ tried to use only one example
⁃ cons:
⁃ more like a news article/story
⁃ repetitive
⁃ lacked organisation
⁃ how would we improve it:
⁃ bringing in more substantive examples

report 2:
⁃ overall mark:  B
⁃ pros:
⁃ written in a more concise manner
⁃ good flow of sub-categories to drive home their point
⁃ straightforward and to the point
⁃ cons:
⁃ formatting is messy/cluttered
⁃ surface level of analysis (copy-pasted content)
⁃ no images/graphics
⁃ how would we improve it:
⁃ make deeper analysis

report 3:
⁃ overall mark: A
⁃ pros:
⁃ detailed writing
⁃ starts off with a good intro (summary) that focuses on general trends then focuses on a specific example
⁃ uses stats and graphics in the appendix
⁃ cons:
⁃ throwing out redundant info
⁃ could have explored more drawbacks
⁃ images could have been put in the report itself to make it clearer, instead of directing people to the appendix
⁃ how would we improve it:
⁃ writing in a more concise language

# data[].attributes.body
Report 1: B-
Pros:
1) in-depth analysis on one article
2) quite structured
3) Included identification techniques
Cons:
1) not enough sources
2) no in-text citation
3) never include stats in the appendix.
Improvement: included in-text citation when taking from source, find more credible sources and included reports saying that ivermectin is bad.

Report 2: B
Pros:
1) in-depth analysis with more sources
2) citations included
3) enough stats
Cons:
1) bad structure
2) no elaboration of parts that are necessary
3) never include stats in the appendix
Improvement: better structure of report and elaborate further to allow readers to understand better.

Report 3: A+
Pros:
1) elaboration on certain thing to help readers understand better
2) very organized
3) plenty of stats included which help to support statement
Cons:
1) executive summary and conclusion too lengthy
2) grammar
3) conclusion doesn't really wrap the entire report up and conclusion should be the last part instead of the reflection.
Improvement: end the report with the conclusion and make sure that the conclusion wraps up everything that the report wrote about.

# data[].attributes.headline
Team 3 [Kai Yoon, Rynise, Xuan Ning, Mavis and Sean]

# data[].attributes.subject
Team 3 [Kai Yoon, Rynise, Xuan Ning, Mavis and Sean]

# data[].attributes.body
Report 1: D
- Pros: Digestable reading, concise, relevant case study cited and attempted to answer the topic on fake news.
- Cons: Did not give proper references when quoting, did not address or analyse the case study properly, more descriptive than inferential and very little of the person's opinion is heard.
- Can improve by raising more examples

Report 2: B-
- Pros: Organised format for the ideas, analysis and reflection portion is good, raised several examples.
- Cons: Lacks a conclusion, reference list is not in proper citation format with the hyperlink, table of contents is too broad and can be further refined and organised, used bulleted points for their report.
- Can improve by: Create executive summary and refine the references made. Table of contents can have pointers subsumed under a main header.

Report 3: A-
- Pros: Great and neat table of contents, correctly cited reference formats and appendixes are included with relevant figures/stats/data/graphs shown as evidence, good organisation of overall writing that is in line with the subheads given to each section of the report. Has in-depth analysis.
- Cons: Report can be written more concisely, the executive summary can be more focused, some parts of the report can include more stats and data to support the relevant points the writer has raised i.e. 3.4.1-3, 3.4.2 is not elaborated upon sufficiently.
- Improvements: Can be more concise and consistently supported by evidence in its elaboration of certain points.

# data[].attributes.headline
Team 4 (Presheeta, Li-Ann, Devona, Bryan, Rachel)

# data[].attributes.subject
Team 4 (Presheeta, Li-Ann, Devona, Bryan, Rachel)

# data[].attributes.body
Report 1:

Overall mark: C

Pros: Good flow, Provided good and sufficient identification techniques

Cons: Lack of in-text citations where necessary, wrong reference formatting, a lot of generalised statements, points not developed enough/lack of nuances in arguments, subjective as opposed to objective

How we would improve: Make writing more formal (report style), include in-text citations, be more objective, develop points further

Report 2:

Overall mark: B-/B

Pros: Good effort in trying to contextualise data ethics, in-text citations, addresses grey-areas (more nuances in arguments), references

Cons: Wrong formatting in table of contents, header on wrong page, flow is a little inconsistent/confusing, a lot of missing full-stops, long sentences, no discussion of direction/purpose of report, references at the end should be on the next page, formatting of references is a little off

How we would improve: standardise headers, include abstract paragraph, provide better flow between sections, references should be on a fresh page

Report 3:

Overall mark: A-

Pros: Very detailed and clear formatting of table of contents, correct in-text citations, references done well, report appropriate writing

Cons: Lazy conclusion, introducing ideas in conclusion, generalised statements

How we would improve: Some ideas still need to be more developed especially towards the conclusion, avoid generalised statements, don’t include new ideas at the end

# data[].attributes.body
Report 1:
Overall mark: C
Pros:
- Making use of some facts/relevant measures in combating issue
- Attempt to analyse what can or cannot be done
- Detailed elaboration to source provided

Cons:
- No proper citations
- Repeating content
- Lacking direction
How would you improve?
- Make use of more evidence to support case

Report 2:
Overall mark: B
Pros:
- Factual
- Presented both side of the case
- Makes use of relevant facts & laws
- Generally coherent flow
Cons:
- Messy formatting
How would you improve?
- Better formatting and flow/organisation
- Organise table of contents

Report 3:
Overall mark: A
Pros:
- Proper breakdown of topic
- Neat formatting
- Good flow
- Comprehensive
Cons:
- Repeating content
- Conclusion is before reflection
- Visuals were placed in appendix instead of in report itself (which would be clearer)

How would you improve?
- Elaboration could be better supported
- Properly state where information is sourced from

# data[].attributes.body
Report 1:
Overall Mark: B
Pros: Very relevant as it uses a Singapore case study.
Does good description of the events surrounding the case study
Attempted analysis of case study, breaking down specific elements and giving their own opinions on the subject
Cons: Lack of evidence. Could have used more case examples and references.
Analysis feels slightly shallow, mostly talking about the direct impact of the fake news in this case example, rather than expanding on how fake news has widely affected Singaporean's beliefs and views.
I don't like their line spacing, too wide.
Improvements: More in-depth analysis, with more focus on the impact of fake news on the wider public, as well as suggesting places where the local discourse could grow.

Report 2:
Overall Mark: A-
Pros: In-depth analysis of topic.
Very clearly paragraphed with good subheadings, giving more structure to the report.
Interesting use of CC0003 stuff.
Made use of many specific examples when discussing the legal side of data protection.
Cons: Could have brought back the topic to Singapore, and about how there is growing awareness of the topic domestically.
Perhaps too much of the report is just content, with a low proportion of it being their own opinion of topic.
Didn't properly address the implications of the Snowden leak.
Improvements: Could have talked about the public opinion of Snowden's actions and if they were positive, as well as the leak's impact on the average person.

Report 3:
Grade: A
Pros: Extremely detailed analysis of subject, with many citations to research reports
Use of diagrams to illustrate certain more complex topics.
Gave a significant amount of their own opinions about the subject as well.
Cons: Perhaps they could have trimmed some specifics in order to make the report more accessible to the average reader.
The diagrams and pictures are not paired with the relevant information within the text, making them less useful than they should have been.
Very much could do without some less useful stats, since they do not link much to their main point of AI in its use in social media
Improvements: Trim down on the examples to make the report more concise.

# data[].attributes.body
Report 1:

Mark: B+

Pros: Use of definitions to explain technical concepts, good case study and beneficial lesson

Cons: Excessive emotional language, could have more analysis of concepts, example used is a bit narrow

Improve: use of more objective & analytical language

Report 2:

Mark: A-

Pros: Use of statistics to back up stance, insightful use of ethics to analyse Snowden’s actions

Cons: Language is slightly too advanced for laypeople, could have more cohesion between sections

Improve: More background information for general audience about ethical terms

Report 3:

Mark: A+

Pros: Proper citation format, use of infographics to aid explanation, deep analysis of Tik Tok Case study

Cons: Lack of personal insight, slightly too objective

Improve: Offer personal views backed up by evidence.

# data[].attributes.body
Report 1:
Overall mark: B-
Pros:
-Direct
-Appropriate Solutions
-Good research for case study
Cons:
-Narrow Case Study
-Repetitive
-Lack of statistical data
How would you improve?
Choose a more appropriate case study

Report 2:
Overall mark: A-
Pros:
-Reliable data (Good research)
-Relating case study to real life application (When to whistleblow?)
-Good introduction
Cons:
-Insufficient citations
-Lack of connection between each subtopic
-Most recent update seems irrelevant (last report in 2015)
How would you improve?
Include appendices (graphs/figures)

Report 3:
Overall mark: A+
Pros:
-Powerful analysis
-Well researched data (proper citations)
-Executive summary (Interesting)
Cons:
- Table of contents could improve (repetition)
- Could show other companies using AI
- Lack of personal data
How would you improve?
-Present information in a more friendly manner, give personal insights

# data[].attributes.body
Team 7 (Heather, Yu Yang, Shanelle, Donovan, Teng Wei)

Report 1:

Overall mark: B-

Pros: (list at least 3 things)

1. A good example was used to illustrate the consequences of believing fake news (Recent and relevant context- COVID-19)

2. Provided a case summary in the beginning to let readers understand more about the background of it

3. Considered an adequate range of consequences of fake news, which includes both the short term and long term consequences

4. The formatting of the text is neat (Justified)

Cons: (list at least 3 things)

1. No in-text citations

2. Lack of data and statistics to back up and support the points. Entire report sounded very anecdotal

3. Summary is rather long and not concise

4. Not enough references, which makes the credibility of the report weak and unsubstantial + Formatting of the reference page is incorrect

5. There isn’t a link between the introduction and whistle blowing

6. No elaboration or explanation on certain points that were brought up such as the secondary identifications techniques by the government

How would you improve? (list at least 1 thing)

A more thorough analysis and explanation of the topic is required to give more depth to the subject.

Report 2:

Overall mark: B+

Pros: (list at least 3 things)

Data and statistics were presented to enhance and support the points presented

Definitions of important terms were explained in an easy to understand format (Explanation on what is Data Ethics and what is Whistleblowing

Cons: (list at least 3 things)

Reference list is messy and does not follow the proper citation formats

Long intro with a short reflection - not enough reflection

Formatting of the reference page is incorrect and not justified

How would you improve? (list at least 1 thing)

Improve on the reflection section (maybe involve other examples besides Snowden)

Report 3:

Overall mark: A

Pros: (list at least 3 things)

A lot of theories and concepts were brought up to enhance the information presented + Appendix was useful in providing a visualisation of these theories and concepts

Provided an executive summary for the readers to understand the main points of the report before they dive deeper into it

Included an interesting insight that is forward-seeking:

“In heading towards the future with AI, our society must aim to make the most out of AI technology while still preserving fundamental human values.”

Cons: (list at least 3 things)

Formatting of the report is not justified

Too many jargons without adequate explanation on them

Assumption was made that Youtube provides preview of recommended videos and is inferior to Tik Tok’s algorithm but no evidence was provided to back up this point

How would you improve? (list at least 1 thing)

Can expand more on Tiktok’s application AI Machine Learning and Deep Learning. Explain more in-depth about AI Machine Learning and Deep Learning