User talk:CanKaya1/sandbox

Dallas Nguyen Peer Review
Thanks for this cool article to read over! When I edit, I usually skip the positive feedback and get right to the heart of where improvements can be found, so please don't feel discouraged if you don't see positive remarks!

I mainly want to echo Armand's comments, because I think those are most important things to worry about right now, and Charlie highlighted a number of copyedit errors already.

Neutrality needs to heavily reexamined. Although the nature of the movement swings left, the article needs to stay clear of opinions or sympathy. The lead section already has mention of potential bias: This order did not consider the hardships that individuals must have to go through and focuses on destroying the framework that the US has held for several years. This open viewed idea of not letting both the Muslim and Latinx community into our country was solely an effort to strike panic. These are better reserved for a personal essay where your analysis can shine. In addition, be careful of words like 'erupt'. There are less forceful words that can express what you mean without editorializing or sensationalizing the facts.

You may want to consider diversifying your sources. I noticed that out of the 18 sources you listed, only maybe two or three came from an academic journal. The other sources were mostly publication sites or organization websites. Also, be careful of creating doubt for your reader where a source should be needed. For example, "On January 25th, 2017 the hashtag “#NoBanNoWall” erupted onto social media platform Twitter quickly after Donald Trump released his news of a so called “Muslim Ban”. Here is one of the "erupted" words, as well as putting the facts into question when you use something like "so called". Use a source that reflects Trump's direct words rather than editorialize here.

Finally, I agree with Armand that it will help immensely for the next draft to be structured in a more Wikipedia-friendly format or something easier to track your changes. I think once you do that, you can better see whether you would like to keep the structure as it is (following the Move Me chapter template) or switch around parts of the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dallasnguyen (talk • contribs) 06:51, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

Dallasnguyen (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 15:57, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

Can Kaya Peer Review
The overall content of your edits and additions to the article are great, but here are a few ways you can improve upon them:


 * Leading statements in the opening of your sandbox are not as clear and organized as they should be. Instead of summarizing the events by saying "Trump erupted one of the largest movements of the year by issuing many executive orders" be specific and mention what the names of the executive orders were and what his reasonings for implementing them were.
 * The neutrality and therefore integrity of this post is also at stake with the use of phrases like "issuing many executive orders against all refugees facing oppression." This seems like more of a opinion and not factually backed. by stating "all refugees facing oppression" you are making a very large claim that I believe is outside of the scope of this article. Again comments like "This order did not consider the hardships that individuals must have to go through and focuses on destroying the framework that the US has held for several years." don't seem neutral and aim to attach a negative impression with the executive orders. As bad or harmful they may be, it is not your job to way in on that aspect of the matter, you must aim to keep a neutral position and report only the facts.
 * There are also a few grammatical errors one of which was a the need for a comma after "North Korea" when listing the countries effected by the bans. Be sure to include and double check any missing grammatical marks that need to be inserted/omitted.
 * Be sure to cite you sources, none of them were hard cited through wikipedia, the URL's were only available. Once those are hard linked be sure to assign them to the proper place in the article.
 * Finally try to organize the information in a more Wikipedia formatted way. The information is left in a draft format with a lot of indentations and bullet style listings, but this is something to consider for the final format of the article.

(Armand Bogossian (talk) 04:03, 13 March 2019 (UTC))

Peer Review: Charlie Faramarzi
Hey all,

So far this looks good in my opinion. It's substantive, and it is clear that you have done your research. The only suggestions I can make are merely grammatical. These suggestions are as follows:

1) In "Movements by countries Affected by Muslim Ban", be a bit more consistent with your tense. You switch tenses when talking about Trump which isn't necessary since all events you're discussing happened in the past.

2) I would rewrite "Social media users used this hashtag and uploaded a photo of their grandparents and protested the travel ban" as "Social media users photos of their grandparents under this hashtag to protest the travel ban"

3) Fix the typo around the word "save" in "They brought up several court cases that helped save refugee individuals reunite with families"

4) Delete the second sentence in "Left/middle: Individuals who swing left wanted there to be no ban and no wall. These are the individuals who created the movement and wanted no one to be restricted into coming into the US. The left side of the political spectrum" - it doesn't seem necessary/connected to the rest of the paragraph.

5) perhaps say "the political Right" instead of "the right swing". — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cfaramarzi (talk • contribs) 05:37, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

Jeshua Peer Review
Social Media Presence

I think that you could mention a little more on how the presence of social media developed into ultimately starting this movement in the beginning, just as an intro for social media presence. For example: Which were the most significant sites/platforms used?

Popular hashtags (refer to #DREAMers)

This is well done.

~5 most important FB/ Twitter posts and why - most should come from a figure listed above (include screenshots)

Are you looking into ones that were most views/impressions? Define more clearly how this is defined.

d) Analysis of how important social media has been for this movement - essential/important/helpful

As you talk about this it may also be beneficial to bring up where government has cracked down on social media, or when social media has worked particularly well (you've done some of this already).

Organic vs. planned growth

Good outline, add more on this section!

JeshuaKJohn (talk) 06:58, 13 March 2019 (UTC) JeshuaKJohn (talk) 22:50, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

Peer Review: Birks Sachdev
This is a very detailed and well written article. I love the concision with which you present the historical context of NoBanNoWall movement. Nonetheless, I'd like to offer some critiques:

1) There are a couple of typos in the article which you should watch out for. The 'I' in 'RIght' should not be capitalised, in the section 'Political spectrum'.

2) The first letter of names like "mexico" in the "Analog antecedents Kiana" must also be capitalised, and the 'p' in "president Donald Trump". Ensure that your grammar, punctuation and sentence flow is consistent throughout and breaks down the information in a manner which is easy to comprehend.

3) Ensure that you cite all sources throughout. There are some sections which are not referenced closely, like the "Analog antecedents Kiana" section

4) I agree with Dallas' point that your article could be structured in a format which was easier to read, and more Wikipedia friendly, which would make it easier for you (and others!) to update your changes if new information comes to light.

5) Perhaps it would be useful to include diagrams/figures which show the timeline of the events to support the text which you have written. Remember to cite these!

Overall, great job on your first draft - it is very promising!