User talk:Sgarc23/sandbox

Peer Review

Overall I think you have a good set of sources and a clear, organized structure. I do think that the introductory section is a bit vague and more precise facts would enhance the article and reader's attention to the topic. For example, can you be more exact about when in the late 20th and early 21st century online social movements gained momentum? And maybe what events in particular prompted new generations to engage with the web in this manner? I noted a few grammatical errors, the changes of which are in bold: "Several social media movements have raised money for causes, such as the ALS Ice Bucket challenge in raising $100million in 30 days. Even if they do not involve monetary funding, many online social movements raise awareness for causes such as institutionalized racism against African Americans with the Black Lives Matter movement and the inappropriate use of force by police authorities against black females, such as with the Say Her Name social movement.  You seem to largely repeat what is in the original article, and while it provides a good foundation, I think you can expand on what it has to say by providing how certain movements reflect the sense of awareness brought to social and political issues, a point you mentioned in your introduction.  In order to balance the positive and negative impacts of online social movements, in might also be beneficial to add a few more points to the original article regarding how the movements you choose to draw upon may be detrimental. You add that politically-speaking online social movements have brought about change but I think it would be interesting to, again, elaborate on this by introducing any research/studies that have discussed political influence as it relates to the topic. Lastly, I was a little confused because you said at the end to "Add a section on Important/Relevant Figures" since there was no content to go along with that statement.

Camomileviolet (talk) 18:09, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

Peer Review 2
In the last sentence of the first section of the article, "have introduced internet" could be better phrased as "has introduced the internet". the phrase "for the cause" in the same section can be changed to "for causes" since you describe multiple causes. Under the Beneficial Impacts section, The sentence about "the younger generations" may want to be worded better to sound less bias. Or at least back up with a citation. Under the same section the sentence that includes the word "positive" may want to be changed to sound less bias as well. Under the Examples of Online Movements, you repeat the ALS movement. I believe it can stay that way but since you already talked about it, it is not necessary to re-list. The Future section could be changed to sound more objective. Crvazqu (talk) 03:26, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

(I just noticed Chayla's review over on the article's talk page and moved it over here to be sure you saw it. --Jmstew2 (talk) 21:02, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

Instructor Comments
Nice work Sofia! Nice attention to detail with the addition of the slacktivism hyperlink and building out the major examples list. I agree with all of the comments in the peer review above -- make sure to go back and fix those sentence-level grammatical changes, as well as beef up the intro and the important persons section with some information about the figures (you can put a colon after each name and summarize their importance in 1-2 sentences). I like the changes you made to "beneficial impacts." Just to be clear (since you already added most of this to the main Wiki article, which is fine) -- the last sentence that you have in this section on your sandbox that isn't included in the article yet will replace the weak sentences that are there, not authored by you? ("The younger generations of the world spend much of their time online, and while this could be seen as detrimental physically, it can be positive when it comes to education and learning. Awareness and education are some of the benefits of online movements." --> These should definitely be deleted! You include awareness in your benefits section in a much more authoritative and encyclopedic way.) --Jmstew2 (talk) 12:45, 4 April 2017 (UTC)