User talk:BrittanieJonidi/sandbox

Maddie's Peer Review
Hi there!

So, I hope I am doing this correctly (got a bit confused as to how the peer review is supposed to work), but here are my comments on your article draft. :)

First of all, I really like the clear cut explanation of what image events are in the first section, it was easy to understand in a few sentences what the term means, and how it gets used as a form of communication and data dissemination. Something I might suggest doing is comparing and contrasting Images Events to Media Events (which has a wiki page of it's own) to better differentiate the two and explain how Image Events have a different aim than traditional media events that rely on more conventional channels to get their messages across.

Secondly, for the Historical Context section, I think you are absolutely right that the digital age has made the way in which people access and receive information primarily online. Something that might be interesting to look at would be early Image Events and how they were different from the ones that happen now. That being said, I know very little about image events, so I am not even sure what image events were like before the wonders of the internet!

Finally, Greenpeace is a veritable gold mine for image events. I think there is also Earth First! Who are very similar to Greenpeace which might be fun to look at as examples of Image Events. Both of these are Environmental groups though, I believe, and it would also be cool to see some other image events staged around other issues. The various tactics employed by the Votes for Women campaigns come to my mind, although those were an example of staged public events without the image component.

I hope this is helpful! (And that I have done it right?)

Maddie

MaddieLeJeune (talk) 17:40, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

Cappa's Peer Review
'''First, what does the article do well? Is there anything from your review that impressed you? Any turn of phrase that described the subject in a clear way?'''

Brittanie, I enjoyed reading your article. It is very concise and idea rich. It takes the reader through an objective account of how image events are at the pinnacle of modern political debates (i.e. whaling, the Syrian civil war, the animal production industry, economic injustices, fundraising for natural disasters, and so forth). You use the specific example of Greenpeace really well in terms of how the photo is used to stir political debate around whaling for example.

Beginning with the historical context is ingenious, especially with the ability to talk about image events through traditional print and audiovisual media, and then transition into image events being transmitted via the computer, tablet, cell phone, and so forth. You have the ability to make this a really outstanding article with some excellent case studies, recent and historical. Having a section for environmental image events and image events as data is a really good way to encapsulate image events as a whole as many public discussions about image events usually surround the environment, war, and controversial events that stir the emotions of the public in general.

You seem to be off to a great start with your ideas and having some sources cited.

'''What changes would you suggest the author apply to the article? Why would those changes be an improvement?'''

Your historical context section could be a thesis paper in itself, so I'd suggest finding specific examples in history that really made their mark on humanity. The World Wars, perhaps World War 2, would be a good starting point. You could start with the imagery from Europe that got Canadians to enlist, imagery from Pearl Harbour that incited Americans to enlist, then you can move into notable images from the 1950s about the threat of nuclear war, the 1960s/70s about Vietnam and the environmental movement, the 1980s about Chernobyl, the 1990s about the US Gulf War in Iraq, 2000s with 9/11, 2010s with the 3yr old Syrian boy washed up on shore, Arab Spring in 2011. These are just a few political issues of those eras that I know off the top of my head that were colossal image events.

What's the most important thing the author could do to improve the article?

Elaborate more on image events on data, specifically how they make claims, inflict emotions, and alter perspectives. I'd even recommend putting image events as data before environmental image events, and then this would highlight environmental image events at the end of your article as a more specific case study. Also, perhaps add some pictures, infographics, and other various illustrations about prominent image events.

'''Did you notice anything about the article you reviewed that could be applicable to your own article? Let them know!'''

Your article was very concise and objective thus far, which is good! This is something I 100% need to apply to my article as mine reads more as original scholarship than an objective account of the issue, which is the main standard of Wikipedia's dogma/standards.

michael_paul72 (talk) 7:01, 9 November 2017 (UTC)