User:Serinali/Internet activism/Varshanekkanti Peer Review

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing?

Serinali


 * Link to draft you're reviewing
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Serinali/Internet_activism?veaction=edit&preload=Template%3ADashboard.wikiedu.org_draft_template
 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)
 * Internet activism

Evaluate the drafted changes
Content: The content in the article is definitely relevant to the original published page, and adds value to the criticism section of the main page. State repression is a significant concern in the context of Internet activism, and I really liked how this was the focus of your content that is a big gap in the current article. Along with this, I appreciated how you contextualized state repression through the example of internet censorship in China. From reading the main article, a lot of the arguments and points being made were grounded in examples from different countries such as China and the UK, so I liked that the added material followed a similar format. One area of improvement would be to potentially draw from a previous “case study” or example that was mentioned in the article. Particularly in the history of Internet activism section, there are a lot of different countries that are discussed which made it more difficult to follow, so perhaps drawing from one example that was already mentioned and building upon it would be helpful.

Tone and Balance: While this content would be added to the criticisms part of the Wikipedia article, I found the content to be very neutral. Any ‘opinions’ that were presented in the text we included in the context of a research study or a scholar/journalist.

Sources and References: All the content that was included in the piece was backed up by reliable sources of information. The sources are reasonably recent (2012 and 2013), and they discuss university research studies and span a diverse range of authors. Moreover, the sources seem reputable (American Political Science Review and China Perspectives). One thing I was curious about was the China perspectives source because the background/origins of the author would influence the nature of the information that might be found in that source.

Organization: The placement of this added material makes a lot of sense and furthers the criticism section of the original Wikipedia article in a very logical manner. The content itself is well-organized. The only note in this category was that the very last sentence about microblogging feels somewhat disconnected from the rest of the content, but everything else makes a lot of sense.

Overall impressions: Overall, I found this content to be very strong and a great addition to the main article.