User talk:Cmaffe3/sandbox

Cmaffe3's peer review: By Shainamgrace
I would switch the first two sentences for the lead of the paragraph. I believe starting the article with the reasons for social media usage would be a stronger opener for the paragraph than the most used cites. Then it transitions nice into the third sentence about Facebook being used for protests.

Good use of a link to the Egyptian Revolution of 2011.

The next sentence about government restriction seems slightly random. I would explain further if the restrictions were due to the revolution to keep a natural flow to the paragraph. Did protestors use the social media to stay connected with friendships or stay up to date on future protests?

The last sentence seems very out of place so I would try to find a way to tie in the police and homosexual men with the Egyptian Revolution and perhaps add another link here to support your work.

I think you are on the right track but need some balance and transitions throughout your work. I would also suggest citing another source to make your information reliable. Overall, good job for the rough draft!

-Shaina

Peer Review
Almost everything in the article seemed to be relevant to the topic and nothing really distracted me. However,I do not understand the relevance of the first sentence, yes it is about social media, but I feel like the article is about what people use those platforms for not about which are the most popular if that makes sense. The section seemed to be neutral. All of the sources seem to be reliable because they look like they are academic journals. Each fact is supported by a source. The information seems to be a few years old for the majority of the article so maybe you could give one more sentence about the recent usage. I understand the importance of the topic and the information is stated clearly. The sentences are organized well. Kseruntine (talk) 04:16, 29 October 2018 (UTC)Kristina Seruntine

Peer Review Edits
After reading our peer reviews, we decided to switch the first two sentences and make them flow better. Despite the request for transitions, we did not change the structure of our section because we felt that adding transitions would amount in unnecessary words that do not help the section. Cmaffe3 (talk) 19:04, 2 November 2018 (UTC)