User talk:Marquez94n/sandbox

Jeshua Peer Review
Under Background

I think in here it may also be beneficial to find quotes from reliable sources that articulate Kaepernick's sentiment and reasons for his actions. The other content you have going is good. To this point, since the article is also very well-developed, it would be useful to name all of the major players/participants in the movement and specifically cite their contributions.

Under College

I think there needs to be an acknowledgement of where race comes into play as well, what were the demographics of this basketball team. Mind details that may develop and articulate the movement as a whole - participants, allies and oppositions (I think you do have this in this case).

Under High School From a policy standpoint, it is also important to acknowledge what and how any actions are being taken - what is the backing rational used to issue punishment (I say this because it comes up as a factor in the NFL). You continue to do well in this when you articulate the story after the incident:

"Ninth Circuit Court for the Southern District of California ruled in favor of high school players, and stated that no high school football player can be force to stand during the national anthem or cannot be force out of the team by refusing to do so..."[8]

I think there should be more articulated about this: "there is a major difference between a professional football player and a high school football player is that the last one does not have to abide by a contract." It is a very good start, but will definitely need to be developed and explained more.

I think this section is a very well developed point, does it become part of your thesis? If so make sure you also develop structure that allows for the "other side" to be present. You mention corporations and being under contract, but how does this also play into the overall sentiment that "career people (sports, movies etc.) should not be voicing political opinions" and that "sports should be free from politics" - what are arguments for and against this?

"the problem arises in the fact that freedom of speech is not guaranteed all the time, especially in extracurricular activities such as football games."

New Section Under Reactions: Social Media

This is a good start for social media, keep adding to it!

JeshuaKJohn (talk) 06:53, 13 March 2019 (UTC) JeshuaKJohn (talk) 22:07, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

Article In General
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'll begin my peer review with a snapshot of what can be improved in the article isolated from your edits. I noticed a problem with word neutrality and ambiguous wording that can be suspect to false or misinformation. You will notice that a couple of sections use words like "some", "many", and "both" and "while". For example, here is the first paragraph in the lead section with these words (in addition to some copy edits): Since August 2016, some American athletes have protested against (omit) police brutality and racism[2][3][4][5][6] by kneeling during the U.S. national anthem.[7] Since 2017, many players also began protesting against (omit) President Donald Trump's[7] criticisms of those involved in the protest as well as against Trump's policies since taking office.[7] Some (omit) observers have described the protests as politically motivated or patriotic, while others have criticized the attention to social issues during sporting events, and (omit) others have called the protests unpatriotic or disrespectful.[8][9]

Notice how the bolded words lend themselves to making the statements sound wishy-washy and not fact-based. The article becomes subjective when we don't actually know how many players stood in solidarity - a left-biased reader may assume many protestors is a good estimate, but a right-biased reader may have seen the situation as insignificant and 'many' as a poor word to represent that.

I can give one more example of wording that needs to be tightened. This is the second sentence under the second paragraph of Background: Some believe it salutes military and police officers who have died on duty; for others, it honors the United States generally.[12][18]

Again, who exactly are the some and others the article is referring to? It might help to check those sources to see how they came to generalize which group of people belonged to which opinion.

One other recurring problem I see in the article is its use of standalone quotes. Many quotes from sources are inserted without a lead reference and just hang by themselves. This is poor reporting and does not disclose the source. For example, under the section Trump calls for firing protesting players, the second sentence of the second paragraph is: "This has to do with respect for our country and respect for our flag," he said. These quotes should be integrated into a sentence with a paraphrased source of the quote. It should be attributed like this sentence in the article: According to Sports Illustrated, Evans said, "If this happens..."

Review of Sandbox Edits
For background, I'm not sure why the added info comparing the protests to Rosa Park's protests are noteworthy. As a casual reader, I would be more interested in the facts and history. Analyzing Kapernick's actions to Park's crosses that line, in my opinion. It's not really background or context for the protests. If you would like to keep this information, I would recommend moving it to the "Reactions" part of the article, and expressing it as a reaction from for example, the leader of the NAACP.

I think it's personal preference, but I would have preferred seeing source citations directly after the paraphrased sentences in the College section edits, rather than completely at the end. It makes it easier to attribute what information came from what source directly.

In the high school section, omit "And while this was the case were no consequences or punishments were implanted on the players, this is not always the case." This is non-neutral wording.

In the corporations section, omit also from "even Texas senator, Ted Cruz also".

Be careful of too many conjunctions connecting previous ideas. Keep in mind that this should not read like a personal essay. "And also, but while, but not only, nevertheless" make it seem like the author is connecting his/her own ideas and making some kind of implication rather than staying to the facts.

Edited: Added sign to clarify who edited

Dallasnguyen (talk)

Nathanael Marquez Peer Review

 * You have done a great job with you draft of the article so far. You offer so much additional information to most of the sections already in the original article posting. From reading the article I was concerned there was not going to be much for you to add since this is clearly not a stub article but was pleasantly surprised to find all your additions. First off your section addition under "High School" was a great addition and I think bringing the topic of first amendment free speech restrictions within certain contexts is very important tot the topic and needs to be further addressed. Secondly you have a very clear structure and leading introduction. I didn't see any neutrality concerns or the use of persuading/condemning language. I also looked through your sources and found that they were appropriate, relevant, and of scholarly origin. Keep up the good work and I'm lookin forward to seeing your finished product.

(Armand Bogossian (talk) 04:08, 13 March 2019 (UTC))

Marquez's Peer Review
What accomplishes well: Well done on sheding light on the march's influence on college, high school and corporations. You've also done a great job to present various groups' point of view in a neutral way. I'm looking forward to your new Social Media section with some deep analysis of hashtags!

What could be improved: The college and high school protests are surely impressing, though I would also suggest adding some positive information. --Thesubtleart (talk) 05:53, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

Peer Review: Birks Sachdev
This was an awesome article! Very well researched and I love the way you suggested specific improvements for each category, which make it easy to implement changes. Here are a couple of comments/critiques which you can use to make improvements:

1) Check your punctuation and grammar in each body paragraph; in "Nevertheless, the problem arises in the fact..." the "in" should say "is". Under "High School", the line should state "... minorities, especially against African Americans"

2) It would be great if you could detail how other corporations responded apart from Nike. The citations and structure for this section is well done, and layout is impeccable and easy for users to read.

3) Try not to begin sentences with "And" and "But". In my opinion, this breaks down the article's flow and makes it feel disjointed. Use words that connect the sentence to what was written about in the previous sentence/section.

4) You could add different sections to the "Corporations" section and outline the responses of prominent companies to this movement. Information about the reaction of sponsors can be found in this article: https://www.nytimes.com/2017/09/27/business/nfl-sponsors-anthem-protests.html

5) Delete the duplicated word "the the" in the last paragraph "Reactions".

Overall, great job, you suggested fantastic improvements and added plenty of information in a coherent format! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Birkssachdev (talk • contribs) 07:53, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

Response to Peer Reviews
Jeshua Peer Review

Thanks for all your feedback! We'll definitely incorporate some of your ideas and suggestions when we make our edits.

Under Background

We may utilize interviews (if available) to get direct quotes from Kaepernick and if they are not available, finding the most credible source that has direct quotes from him or any source that he personally contributed to or posted. We will definitely include major players and participants in the movement as we already found some significant ones in our #MoveMe assignment.

Under College

We will look deeper into that!

Under High School

We will explain more about how professional and high school football players differ regarding contracts.

Under Corporations

We will look deeper into this, including both perspectives in the spectrum. The statements "career people should not be voicing political opinions" and "sports should be free from politics" are usually seen from the side the statements stand on, so if there is a different opinion it will be included. Additionally, we will look into the influence political statements by athletes/celebrities have on the people and how the general population takes in their opinions.

New Section Under Reactions: Social Media

Thanks!

Cxndyoh (talk) 17:00, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

Dallas Nguyen

Article in General

Thank you Dallas for your review. Your suggestion is significant and will help us improve the article further. I agree that the use of ambiguous wording can be misleading and portrays the facts as wishy-washy. To combat this, per your suggestion, we will review the cited sources and either use facts in the source to replace the wording or find better sources that have more facts.

Review of Sandbox Edit

I agree with your statement about comparing Kaepernick to Rosa Parks. The section would fit better under "Reactions".

Regarding the citation in the "College" section, because the paraphrased sentences are a culmination of information from all of the articles, the citations are put at the end. However, for future edits, we will keep this in mind and put citations where they are appropriate.

Regarding omitting words and the use of conjunctions, we will look over these suggestions and make the necessary changes.

Thank you again for your detailed feedback.

Birks Sachdev

Thank you for your detailed review! You've caught grammatical issues that we may have overlooked, which will improve the overall article a lot. As for the section improvements, you made great suggestions. We will look into your suggestions and the article you provided and see if it fits the overall picture.

Lyniewong (talk) 17:03, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

Response to Bogossian's Peer Review.

Thank you so much for the feedback, we will definitely look for more reliable information regarding these topics that we can add to this article to make more appealing to the reader. Marquez94n (talk) 17:09, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

Response to Thesubtleart's Peer Review:

Thank you so much for the feedback!

Regarding the positive information, we can definitely go ahead and look for articles that talk about the positive effects that this movement has had on the US population itself.Marquez94n (talk) 17:19, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

BSII0IX's Peer Review
Your lead section is very good because it is easy to understand and it is very neutral since you state all views and different perspectives on the movement. It is very good how you first summarize the intention of the protest, then you give a short summary of the background and its history and you state the biggest event that occurred related to the protest and that the protest is best known for. It is very helpful how you split up the section on “NFL protest” because it allows the reader to get a better overview of how the protest evolved and can be used as a timeline. Also your connection to other sports and institutions is very good. It shows the impact of the protest and how it spread to other sports and in the society n general. Good job!! BSII0IX (talk) 21:00, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Double check the second paragraph of your “Background” section. Is it actually related to the protest and needed to understand the background of the protest?
 * You include a lot of quotations in the “Background” section. Be careful not to quote too much since it is supposed to a an article about the protest and not a summary of news media.
 * Your section about “Causes” doesn’t really address the causes of the protest it rather talks about Kaepernick’s intention and why he refused to stand up.

Peer Review: Mark Palmer
Hi great article contributions, I can tell you all did a lot of research into different cases that sprouted up. I think a very important contribution you are making is the high school/college players becoming involved in this movement, as this shows the spread of social media influence on many groups. - Some edits I would suggests mainly have to do with grammatical fixes, such as "a major difference between a professional football player and a high school football player is that the last one does not have to abide by a contract." - I would suggest changing "the last one" to "the latter", as you are only referencing two things. - This sentence is not really needed in the start of the article. "There is a debate as to whether a high school student is free." - "While a student himself/herself can exercise his/her freedom of speech" - to simplify this sentence, delete the himself/herself, and replace the his/her with a their. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mpalm123 (talk • contribs) 22:58, 7 April 2019 (UTC)