Talk:Multimedia journalism

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): MelodyYifan. Peer reviewers: Hothamwater.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 01:16, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Multimedia Journalism Peer Review
Your article, Multimedia Journalism, is excellent. It is overall very well-researched and written. I believe it is actually far beyond the requirements for this assignment, in terms of length (mine is signifigantly shorter). It covers the topic and the variety of perspectives involved in great detail, and using credible sources. The main changes that I would suggest is to edit it to make it somewhat more concise. Further, I think the tone of the article is somewhat not like most of the articles on Wikipedia. Most articles are written with fairly simple and easily understandable language, even when dealing with complex topics. In this case, it does read like an academic paper, which may be a little more challenging than a typical Wikipedia article. However overall, it is an extensive, very well researched article and I look forward to see what the Wikipedia community does with it. I have further broken down some of my criticisms:

Lead Section - Your lead section is good. However I think it may get into too much detail, particularly the third paragraph. I believe the first two paragraphs would be sufficient to convey what this article is about.

Structure - The article is well-structured, and organized in a logical manner.

Balance - The article is well-balanced and certainly covers a breadth and depth of information related to the topic in a ballanced way.

Neutrality - The article is written from a neutral point of view, and covers all of the relevant perspectives related to the topic in a way that doesn’t bias any particular one.

Reliable Sources - As the article is largely discussing academic arguments and points of view, it directly sources those specific academic articles. Thus, it is extensively sourced, and does use reliable sources.

Hothamwater (talk) 04:14, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

Peer Review Review
Hmmm... I'm afraid this Peer Review illustrates the shortcomings of the whole Wiki Ed enterprise. I basically stopped reading the article after a couple of sections because it was filled with problematic, quasi-academic prose that verges on gobbledy-gook. I then discovered that it was all written by one editor as a student project. Small wonder that it comes across more like a personal essay than an encyclopedia article. The Peer Reviewer first calls it "excellent" and "well-written" -- but then raises questions about the "tone" being overly "academic", perhaps too "challenging" as a result. S/he is onto something, but doesn't quite get to the essence of the problem. I would put things more simply: throwing together a series of ungrammatical strings of undefined terms doesn't take the place of lucid explanation. Anomalous+0 (talk) 11:57, 23 February 2022 (UTC)