User talk:MichaelLopez92/sandbox

Article Evaluation
Flaming (Internet):

Content: An improvement that can be made is to shorten up the quotes that were used under the purpose heading. Another part that can be fixed is the history section. The previous author trying to give historical examples may be a far stretch for the more modern usage of the term.

Tone: The introductory paragraph seems to be very negative leaning, but the subject is about a negative topic.

Sources: Links to multiple sources open up to correct resources. Information from these sources to provide extra background on the topic and consequences of flaming.

Talk Page: Not much activity on the talk page. Some of the discussions and posts are pretty offensive and needs removal. It is of mid-importance and it has been archived by Wikipedia.

Bear2Bulldog (talk) 01:40, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

Adding to Flaming
What I plan to add to the Flaming (Internet) article is more up to date information. Even though the article is a little out of date and the term isn't used as much as others, there is still room for improvement and there are scholarly articles that do discuss this topic. Also, there isn't much action on the talk page, but I hope to address some of the older issues that were posted on the talk page. MichaelLopez92 (talk) 03:38, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

Response
Nice work, Michael. Be sure to edit in the "user page" instead of the "talk" page. Looking forward to who you improve this article.Carolyncunningham (talk) 21:50, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

Grace's Peer Review - 4/21/19
Hi Michael, here are my suggestions after reviewing the Flaming (Internet) page and your sandbox! Hope this is helpful going forward. Lead Section For the most part, this section is good. I would suggest these edits: -There are a few places where grammar could be touched up by adding a comma or starting a new sentence. -The interchanging of "flame battles" and "flame wars" was a little confusing to me; I might encourage sticking to one or the other. -This sentence seems biased and lacks any citation: "In modern Internet parlance, this term has been almost entirely superseded by the term “trolling.”" Purpose -The concept of antiprocess is lacking a citation. -The paragraph which begins with "Generally" also could use a direct tie to an existing or new citation. History -Most of this section is well laid out and easy to understand. -This is a paragraph where all these citations should be numeral references rather than cited as though it's a course paper: "Computer-mediated communication (CMC) research has spent a significant amount of time and effort describing and predicting engagement in uncivil, aggressive online communication. Specifically, the literature has described aggressive, insulting behavior as "flaming", which has been defined as hostile verbal behaviors (Thompsen and Foulger, 1996), the uninhibited expression of hostility, insults, and ridicule (Kayany, 1998), and hostile comments directed towards a person or organization (Aiken and Waller, 2000) within the context of CMC." Flame War -It seems concerning that only two citations are included in this entire portion of the page. If possible, I'd see if any current citations support the assertions herein. Examples -This sentence start is confusing to me: "The Holy war perennial debates" -- I'm not sure if this makes sense? I'm not sure if it is a tongue-in-cheek thing. -I know you are planning to update this section, which it obviously desperately needs, given the most recent example is 2007. Legal Implications -This section is fairly tight, but I bet there are examples of legal battles/cyber harassment cases tied to flame wars, if you were interested in adding that information here. Grace raper (talk) 16:36, 21 April 2019 (UTC)