User talk:Raffiter10/sandbox

Peer Review Comment: When first looking at the original Wikipedia page on ‘Protest against Donald Trump’ I noticed that the page already provided its reader with lot of information. I like the fact that, despite the ‘Protest against Donald Trump’ page already showcasing so many details, your team was able to find a topic that was not included in the main page; that of the social media impact. I think this is a great addition to the page since social media plays such an immense and important role in our world and especially in this election. I like the fact that you are planning on focusing on three hashtags that have a direct connection to this topic. By solely focusing on the most common hashtags you will not overwhelm the reader with more information than the page is already providing its readers with. You could try looking for further Wikipedia pages that already exist on these specific hashtags and link them to your article. Overall great job - Can’t wait to see your team's final version! Blogger192AC (talk) 21:03, 20 October 2017 (UTC)Blogger192AC

Peer Review and Copyedit
Overall, I really liked the formatting of the article. It seems very structured and actually looks like how a Wikipedia article will be structured. The article seems very well proofread and I couldn't find any grammatical or spelling errors. Each hashtag covered a different viewpoint on the topic at hand. I would recommend just expanding on each section and exploring the uses of each hashtag outside of Twitter. The #Notmypresident section should discuss the celebrity uses, the number of uses, and the motivations for uses. The citations were good and the language was very encyclopedic. I would add a section with the links to the sources as well.

Kevindphan (talk) 21:26, 20 October 2017 (UTC)Kevin

Peer Review Comment
Your article draft was very well structured and easy to follow. I found the initial paragraph to be very beneficial as it clearly previews what will be discussed in the sections below it. "Though the exact origin of this hashtag is unknown, it quickly caught on and spread various social media platforms". This sentence is missing a word after "spread". Something along the lines of "throughout" could be added. Besides this, the section on #resist is well written with no other grammatical errors or typos. It covers the hashtag extensively and uses encyclopedic language. I would, however, add more information to the #notmypresident section. Information regarding celebrity use would be helpful. Finally, great sources! They were all reliable and provided relevant information. Lrin96 (talk) 22:18, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

Peer Review: Trinh's Comments
Great job so far! My first thought after reading these revisions and looking at the "Protests against Donald Trump" I definitely feel like the hashtags are a good addition. I do think that the introduction into the paragraph should be longer and maybe go into more of why hashtags against Donald Trump exist in the first place (i.e. why didn't other presidents have hashtags for/against them?) I also think that #NotMyPresident and #StillWithHer should be a bit longer. On top of that, I know that there were multiple variations of hashtags against Trump,so why these three? This should be addressed at some point in this section; what makes them prominent? - "In addition the #Resist movement has been adapted to many different forms as it has been associated with the #BlackLivesMatter movement." I feel like this needs a reference. Overall, great edits! If you need more ideas on what to edit on that page, I think "Airport Protests," "Resist Trump Tuesdays," and "Visit to Poland," could use more information.

Itstrinh (talk) 01:02, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

Peer Review:

I like how you had categories for each subject/hashtag you are discussing. You guys did a great job writing and organizing it! A few things you might want to fix: 1. In the #Resist in the second paragraph there is a typo 2. I would like to read more on the #notmypresident, it was a bit vague Besides those it looks great! Looks and reads like a wikipedia article! Great Job! Calstudent123 (talk) 01:37, 21 October 2017 (UTC)