User talk:Maddydowling27/sandbox

Though the drafted contributions do well to elaborate on how the views of both citizens and politicians in terms of trusting online sources has impacted Resistbot, the article can be further improved in a few ways. For one, the drafted contributions contain a few sentences which implicate bias in the article, outside what is deemed permissible by Wikipedia's standards. Examples can come from the a couple sentences in the first paragraph, stating "in the 2020 election we could see a lot of voters were fearful and untrusting of the process. Resistbot gave an opportunity to these voters to have their fears fade". Without any citations provided for these statements, the draftee should not conclude these statements without evidence. Included by themselves, sentences such as this add bias to the article. Most of these statements can be relegated to the beginnings of the first and third paragraphs. Along with this, the organization of the draft also could be further improved. Though the paragraphs are already divided by subject matter, the inclusion of section headings may add more clarity to the article and break up the paragraphs in a more meaningful manner. Overall, the drafted contributions to the article elaborate on an important nuance of Resistbot's usage that is left out of the main article- that being the concerns of citizens and politicians of misinformation being spread through the service- but needs further revision in terms of removing bias and improving clarity for the subject to be ready of posting on Wikipedia. Vanguard826 (talk) 00:57, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

The beginning can be misinterpreted as “biased” and sounds like the introduction to a paper, especially when there aren’t any references in the first paragraph. I would also recommend deferring from the use of “absolutes” with one example being “As long as the texts are coming from the legitimate source then there should be no problems. The only problem relies upon scam businesses trying to imitate Resistbot.” I don’t think it’s appropriate to use personal pronouns, either, after all you’re maintaining a NPV. When revising, I would suggest that you try and explain what Resistbot is, keeping in mind that you’re not trying to promote the service, but instead you’re trying to paint a picture of “what” it is, including both the good and the bad in a neutral tone to keep a balanced article. “A reason why Resistbot is easy to use is due to the easy access and low commitment of sending a simple text” also sounds like an opening sentence of a paper, I would recommend rewriting it to make it more neutral, like: “resistbot aims to improve texting by making it easier to access and making it more hassle-free.” In doing so, I believe that you refrain from saying whether this feature is good or bad, but you include a neutral statement (you're stating the goal of the service, so it is not siding with them). Overall, the information and knowledge is present, and my only feedback is making each paragraph more neutral — by removing statements that sound like opinions and seem to promote Resistbot's service — to create a balanced and informative article. Once you do that, I thing you’ll be in a great position to improve the article!Matinhomafar (talk) 19:29, 11 October 2021 (UTC)