User:Maddydowling27/Resistbot/Eungjeonglee 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
The newly integrated paragraphs are relevant to the article topic and present consistency. The language is clear and concise. Yet, at certain spots, the tone of the article is not encyclopedic--"A reason why Resistbot is easy to use is..."--the Wikipedia is indicated to be neutral-toned; therefore, the use of adjectives should be chosen by the editor with further caution without personal preference.

"Texting as a medium isn't always perfect, but it usually is much more efficient than email and in-person interaction," Again, the editor made a valid point. Yet, it is not suitable for encyclopedias as the statement presents personal opinion, even if the reader might agree so. Additionally, the use of phrases like "extremely useful" shall be reconsidered as extremely a strongly biased word especially following the heavily indicating adjective.

Whereas claims like: "The app plans to add more additions to its system such as an event map for town hall meetings and scheduled Congress phone calls," are good examples of detailed and based evidence offering readers a comprehensive understanding of the topics' then, now, and future--Well done! The article's sources are diversely selected, yet, basing a significant proportion of the excerpts from the company's creators' precious remarks might not be the choicest idea as it intervenes with the neutrality of the article writing. The information is up-to-date, and the links are accessible. There are points to be improved but the rest is great work!