User:Maddydowling27/Resistbot/Emmettaking Peer Review

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing?

Maddydowling27


 * Link to draft you're reviewing
 * User:Maddydowling27/sandbox
 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)
 * Resistbot

Evaluate the drafted changes
(Compose a detailed peer review here, considering each of the key aspects listed above if it is relevant. Consider the guiding questions, and check out the examples of what feedback looks like.)

The proposed draft has a lot of good and valid information. I am not too sure how to integrate this with the existing article because the draft seems like a rewrite without subtopics. Of course, you can pull pieces of this draft to enhance what is already out there about Resistbot. I think the tone seems biased at times. For example, the second paragraph of your draft begins with the phrase "We can see...". This is in second person which breaks from the rest of the tone of your article that should be in third person. Another example I saw is the following sentence. "Texting as a medium isn't always perfect but it usually is much more efficient than email and in-person interaction." Unless this is a direct quote from someone important related to the field, the reader does not need to decipher whether texting is or is not perfect. I would also disagree with texting be more efficient than in person or email communication. I do not see any sources in the first two paragraphs. Going back to click the links, I am not directed anywhere nor do I see any websites or sources listed. Perhaps you overlooked putting them in but definitely fix this. I think you bring new perspectives to the table and have very good pieces in your draft but it has a long ways to go before it can be uploaded. One minor thing I would edit out are any apostrophes unless they are possesive. Good job and good luck!