User talk:Dreacasillas/sandbox

User talk:Dreacasillas/sandbox

Test Section
Just testing now 02:46, 27 January 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dreacasillas (talk • contribs)

Peer review POL 150 C2 (2)
This is a peer review section that is an assignment within the University of Arizona course "POL 150 C2"

Overall impression : Great entry. Need more reliable resources and a neutrally-balanced approach to the subject. Lead section : Good lead section. I see that the rewritten lead section in your sandbox expands on the existing definition in the article, however you might want to reconsider the source for your definition or strengthen it with another reliable source. Moreover, the lead section could be a little shorter or divided into two smaller paragraphs.

Structure: I like how you expanded on the remarks on Donald Trump with cited examples of his gas-lighting. On the other hand, the remarks on Russia- though they're intended to strike a balance- are not backed by any citation. A more nuetral approach is needed throughout the article. By this I suggest that less politicizing is infused and balanced with the psychological aspect of the term.

Regards ,

Alzubair Amush Thoar — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alzubaira (talk • contribs) 01:13, 22 February 2017 (UTC)


 * Peer Review of "Trump"

During the wikipedia modules, the users were asked to present the claims in a neutral way. To include only information on Donald Trump for gas-lighting would come across as one-sided. To make the article more balanced, adding examples of Barack Obama and perhaps other presidents to make it a more well-rounded article. Or perhaps even avoiding talking about presidents. There are plenty of case study examples that can be provided for this topic and perhaps discussing direct politics and not focusing on the more important topic (Gas-lighting) would be better. The sources also came from popular news media outlets. We were told to provide evidence from scholarly sources and CNN is more of a news corporation that focuses on future predictions rather than what we know. The topic is very well written though.


 * Peer Review of "Russia"

The article concerning Russia is a great modern hypothesis on the Russian government. It should be brought to attention that alot of the claims are based in speculation rather than actual fact. A suggestion would be using examples from Russia's past to elaborate on the topic of Gas-lighting. Russia had a tyrannical dictator from the 20th century in which plenty is now known. This would be a subject that would be an easier source to draw from in a factual light. Current intelligence on modern Russia is still mere speculation when it comes to public knowledge and this section could benefit from selecting a subject with more information backing it.

Peer Review
The first sentence in General Definition has the word "manipulating" spelled wrong. I think the Expansion on Russia piece could have more sources put in when referencing specific things. Overall a great article! Paigepietras (talk) 06:03, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

POL 150 Peer Review
Like previously mentioned, overall I thought it was a great start. Just a couple things: 1. Remember to keep a more neutral tone. 2. More citations would be great. 3. I would link topics you mentioned in the Film section. Thanks. Codybonnet (talk) 06:06, 23 February 2017 (UTC)