User talk:Blantz71/sandbox2

Peer Review for Group
Akrame4 (talk) 16:46, 23 October 2018 (UTC)Akrame4
 * Tone: the opening sentence sounds a bit opinionated and not so much "encyclopedic"
 * Your group did a great job of presenting the facts after the first sentence.
 * The word "boasted" in the third sentence should be changed to something more neutral.
 * Do not say "moreover", just present the information
 * I think that if you move the last two sentences and change them up a bit, they would perfectly introduce what you are about to talk about

Thomas' Peer Review on Brittany
This article has a good lead. It is very clear what they will be discussing in the first few sentences of the article. There is a very clear structure as well. It is chronological and makes sense how it is structured. It flows well because of this. It is well balanced. We can only do so much since we are only supposed to write one paragraph for this project. This definitely feels like a neutral argument. Some of the tone written in this article seems more opinionated rather than writing for a scholarly article. I would say is that it is solely focused on social media in Brazil, which is their main topic. However, like I said, with only writing one paragraph, there is no way of avoiding this. Overall, this is a very good article that flows well and is structured in a good manner.

Caroline Swanson's Peer review
The first sentence seems a little biased/essay like. I would take out the sentence "this finding supports Brazill...." because the facts speak for themselves. Good use of the statistics. Other than that the draft is good.

Revised Article Notes
We reviewed our first sentence and due to the opinionated tone we omitted "there is no room for questioning" and we left the factual statement after to have our encyclopedic tone

We omitted the word "boasted in our 4th sentence and added the word "reached" instead to add more neutrality to our article.

In our 6th sentence, we removed the word "moreover" again, to keep the tone more encyclopedic

Removed the 8th sentence in its entirety because we found that it was simply restating an idea that already was conveyed in previous sentences.

Overall, the edits that we made to our article were from the great tips we received during peer review. All of our edits were made to add more neutrality to our article. We greatly appreciated everyones feedback!

Peer Review Hannah Norred
The beginning has some fluff information like that of an essay and could be taken out without affecting the overall article. The statics are great and the sources are good as well. The first source is not a link and I think it should be. The article is very clear about what it will be discussing. I also think the last two sentences are not necessary. Overall, a good well thought out article with great information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hannahnorred (talk • contribs) 19:01, 1 November 2018 (UTC)