User talk:Jeffrie w/sandbox

Peer Review
What a great article on the 2011 Wisconsin protests! I found myself intrigued by the article, and wanted to keep on reading. However, as I was reading, I noted some points for improvement that you could use as you continue to work on your article.

In the lead section, it would help if the phrase "2011 Wisconsin Protests" was in the first line in the lead section. When I was reading this section, I felt like I was hunting for this particular word, which did not appear. Instead, having this phrase in the first line would make your article more clear. You could say that the "2011 Wisconsin protests resulted due to ...", or something along those lines. Without having the subject of your article in the first line of your lead section, the reader may become confused about what exactly the article entails.

Furthermore, your structure was clear and the sections of the article thus far flowed well. However, I have feedback regarding the tone and balance of your article. In the first section, it seemed like you were convincing the reader that the bill was not beneficial at all, and seemed to present one side of the argument. I felt as if I was convinced that the bill was inherently bad and this diverges from the encyclopedic tone found in many Wikipedia articles, so you could rephrase your wording there are provide the substance of the bill, and the reasoning behind it (why the bill was introduced, was Scott Walker funded by any organizations, etc.). Furthermore, in the "The protests movement through social media" section", the first three paragraphs detail how the pro-union side was able to advocate for the movement, and less on Governor's Walkers side, which made the article seem somewhat favored to Walker's side. Perhaps to make the article appear neutral is to add more substance to Walker's perspective on the bill and response to the protests, balancing out both perspectives to the article. Perhaps a subsection titled "pro-union side" and "anti-union side" or something along those lines would be beneficial. Furthermore, some sentences may not be encyclopedic, such as "this fact accentuates how social media enables the wide and rapid movement of information and ideas beyond where an issue is centralized" and "every segment of the population made use of social media's accessibility to contribute to the pro-labor protest movement". It seemed to me that you were emphasizing the point that social media was being used in the protests, which diverges from the encyclopedic tone. Removing these types of phrases would make your article less biased and appear factual.

Lastly, the sources were used relevant, varied, and every statement was sourced, so there were no issues with citations. Overall, great job and I look forward to reading the final product!

--GoBears243 (talk) 05:33, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

= Peer Review BG =

In general, I feel that your article draft is full of a lot of great information that brings the situation into context. However, it seems to be very one sided. Although there is information about the opposition to the protests, there is a lot more information about the supporting side. In addition to that, I feel that the language can be read as being biased. Some examples of these terms are controversial, sway, and other terms that paint the supporters of the movement in a more positive light than the other side. In terms of actionable suggestions, I would take out one example of the protest support side and add in another example of the other side in order to make it more equal. I would also go through and review the terminology used throughout each example to ensure that it is judged impartially from a reader.

Bgallardo225 (talk) 03:27, 19 October 2021 (UTC)