User:Iisabellasanch/Advocacy group/Thomas Simbo K. Peer Review

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing?

lisabellasanch


 * Link to draft you're reviewing
 * User:Iisabellasanch/Advocacy group


 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)
 * Advocacy group

Evaluate the drafted changes
Here are some few comments/edits. Feel free to keep or remove them as you want!

- My comments are in parenthesis and plain text. Your work is still in bold.

'''Another 2012 study argued that advocacy groups use social media in order to reach audiences other than the communities they help and to mobilize diverse groups of people. Mobilization is achieved in four ways:'''

"1). Social media help connect individuals to advocacy groups and thus can strengthen outreach efforts.

2). Social media help promote engagement as they enable engaging feedback loops.

3). Social media strengthen collective action efforts through an increased speed of communication.

4). Social media are cost-effective tools that enable advocacy organizations to do more for less." (You could try restate those in your own words without paraphrasing - or keeping as it is if you think you will paraphrase)

'''While these studies show the acceptance of social media use by advocacy groups, populations not affiliated with media advocacy often question the benevolence of social media. Rather than fostering an atmosphere of camaraderie and universal understanding, many believe social media to perpetuate power hierarchies.''' (Why? Is it because of an event that has happened in the past? Or the way social media is structured? Explaining a little bit more may be good)

'''More specifically, social media can provide "a means of reproducing power and fulfilling group interest for those possessing excessive power... [having the potential to] indirectly reinforce elitist domination." By excluding those who lack access to the internet, social media inherently misrepresents populations- particularly the populations in low-income countries.''' - I think this part is good and concise. It helps capture the idea you made at the very beginning of the article.

Since media advocacy groups use social media as a way to boost the narratives of historically marginalized communities, many believe the effect of social media use by advocacy groups to be counteractive; the definition of social media - digital platforms made to spread information and ideas- (It could be good to add the source of where you found that definition)  excludes those without internet access and thus, excludes those without internet access  (Repetitive) '''from sharing their narratives. Instead of directly amplifying the voices and narratives of historically marginalized populations, social media magnifies their concerns through the perspective of individuals with access to the internet. Many believe this perspective to be euphemized and inauthentic- devaluing the concerns of low-income communities.''' (I am not sure if I would add this last sentence. This opinion (by the authors) is relatively strong and comes out of the boundary of being neutral on Wikipedia). '''Since advocacy groups have the agency to control a community's narrative through a social media post, they have the agency to control the deservedness of a community as well. That is, the amount of resources or attention a community receives largely depends on the kind of narrative a media advocacy group curates for them.''' - This is a great summary of the content you added!

Overall:

I agree with the class google doc that the Social media use on the article is not detailed so adding some content will improve the article.

Your added part is easy to read and neutrality can be improved. You really capture the essence of your sources. However, I thing adding 1 or 2 more sources will help improving the section, and will allow readers to dive deeper in the topic if they want to, and eliminate biases if there are any - perhaps another recent article on the use of social media by advocacy group showing a percentage of groups relying or not relying on social media?

The added content is relevant to the topic, concise, and it fits smoothly with the already published article. It is well-written and only a minor word repetition was introduced. The breakdown is good too.

Overall, I think the work you did improves the section and article as a whole. The content is concise and easy to read and understand. I believe the best way to improve the article is too add 1-2 more scholarly sources and removing any potential bias.