User talk:Amyer23/sandbox

'''I plan to add articles about animal activism to the internet activism page. I noticed it did not have anything on that topic but included other similar topics. I also wanted to add to the critiques part and the fundraising sections.''' '''I am still researching sources for internet activism. I am also going to clean up some of the source issues by providing citations or editing existing information without citations''' — Preceding unsigned comment added by Amyer23 (talk • contribs) 21:55, 22 February 2017 (UTC) ==Notes==

Critique section for editing articles (week 3) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Amyer23 (talk • contribs) 22:03, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

'''Critique section for editing articles (week 3) Article: Yik Yak: Q:Is each fact referenced with an appropriate, reliable reference? There is an unverified citation in the first section. There are also a couple sentences that don't have a citation directly following it. It is confusing whether the citation applies to the previous two sentences or just the previous sentence.There are also absent citations in the History and Financing, Controversies, and Features sections. Q:Is everything in the article relevant to the article topic? Is there anything that distracted you? The only thing slightly confusing is the organization. Some of the information under controversies seem like facts about the company and not controversies. Q:Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? The article seems fairly balanced from my novice perspective. The article includes a lot of discussion on bullying which is relevant to social media but may have been overrepresented. Q:Read the "talk" page of each article. What do you find there? I found very similar comments that we are making while editing these articles. The talk page gives a quality and importance rating. It also highlights deficiencies on the articles. Furthermore, it provides edits that have already been addressed and corrected like certain citations. Lastly, I saw the Phil115 evaluation and skimmed it. I felt relieved that some of the notes I made about the article were corroborated in the Phil115 evaluation like the overabundance of information in the controversies section and the somewhat random facts about user usage. Q:Take a look at the Wikipedia quality scale and compare it to your article. Where do you think it falls? If the article has a rating assigned to it, do you think it is accurate? This article is assigned as a start article. This rating is accurate because the quality guidelines provided by the Wikipedia article quality grading scheme point out certain traits characteristic of this article. For example, a start article needs a lot more information added to it just like this article. Furthermore, it provided some meaningful content but it needs more essential information and to take out the superfluous facts. It also needs better organization which was pointed out above and on its talk page.

Article: Internet Activism Q:Is each fact referenced with an appropriate, reliable reference? The types section does not have a citation for a couple statements. Furthermore, there are a few end sentences without citations. They seem to refer directly to the material in the previous sentences that have a citation. Many of the sections do not have citations such as developmental processes, examples of early activism, and environmental activism. Q:Is everything in the article relevant to the article topic? Is there anything that distracted you? The information is relevant to the topic, but the organization is the issue with the article. It is inconsistent and some of the subheadings (such as hashtag activism) are not properly placed. Hashtag activism is the only subheading under Types, yet it discusses many kinds of internet activism. If there is a reason for Hashtag activism to exist separately in the spacing, other types of internet activism should also be highlighted. Q:Is the article neutral? Are there any claims, or frames, that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? The article focuses a lot on social media. This trend is unsurprising in the sense that I would expect social media to be the most prominent type of internet activism because it allows advocates to raise awareness, one of the fundamentals of advocacy. However, these could be under their own category and that would allow for a category for non social media resources. Q:Read the "talk" page of each article. What do you find there? I was actually confused by the talk page on this article. It contained a couple of comments about what is needed in the article. However, for the most part, it seemed full of opinion and bias in addition to random statements of which I do not understand their relevance or appropriate place within this article. Part of the talk page reads like a complaint and a debate on the topic. I also do not understand why the e-activism information was taken down because it seems unbiased and relevant to this article. It was the precursor to this article and contains relevant and meaningful information. For example, under the e-activism in the talk page, there is information on Care2, a highly utilized website in internet activism but it is mentioned nowhere on the article page. I'm very new to Wikipedia, so I do not fully understand if I'm misunderstanding or it is an issue. Q:Take a look at the Wikipedia quality scale and compare it to your article. Where do you think it falls? If the article has a rating assigned to it, do you think it is accurate? I would rate this article as a class C. It is in need of organization and more background to provide context for the reader. It includes a substantial amount of information but not enough for a detailed study like the Wikipedia quality guidelines specify. The citations are also unclear or absent in some places. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Amyer23 (talk • contribs) 23:52, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

Peer Review
The ethical considerations section was very well crafted and integrated sources and multiple points of view, I don't have much to say except for the fact that the last quote seems awkward in the way it was summarized, maybe ut square brackets around the ellipses? I agree with you on the fact that the beginning of the article seems a little bare and needs work as well with citations. As long as you get that done, I think you're in good shape. Sgarc23 (talk) 01:02, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

Peer Review 2; Rubin-Sigler, Jasper Really good article addition. Message was clear and succinct and brought up some really interesting points regarding this aspect of internet activism. I think the one thing that could be a major addition to an already strong section would be to just add some specifics (I think you actually have some specific examples below “1st draft” on your sandbox, I just wasn’t sure if they were meant to be included). I couldn’t find any blaring grammatical errors (maybe just find another word for proponent as its used twice in successive sentences). — Preceding unsigned comment added by JasperRS (talk • contribs) 16:16, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

Instructor Comments: I agree with your other reviewers -- nicely done. I am wondering where you plan to put this section... It is more of a general consideration of the ethical issues involved, and so doesn't really fit under any of the specific "criticisms" sections already in the article. It could potentially go under "Criticism" as an opening section before any of the sub-headings. However, you include opinions about internet activism from proponents as well (how it can make a positive, ethical difference), so may not be totally conceptually appropriate there. Will you put it as its own section? Let's strategize about this at our meeting. --Jmstew2 (talk) 15:38, 3 April 2017 (UTC)Jmstew2

Response to Peer Review
To all three of you, thank you for taking the time to review my article. I agree about needing a few more citations in the beginning of the main article. I also need to consider where this addition will go. I plan to discuss it with the professor during our meeting but am leaning towards making it its own heading, maybe before criticisms because many of the criticisms are incorporated in ethical drawbacks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Amyer23 (talk • contribs) 17:54, 3 April 2017 (UTC)