User talk:Shakeir04/sandbox

Hi Shakeir,

Sorry for the late response. I'll start out with the strengths in your article and then go on to things that could be improved.

First of all, I really liked the intro into your article explaining what mediacracy is, looks like the type of article that I would look for when trying to define what mediacracy is. I like your style in separating the background, causes, effects, and counterarguments and keeping it objective, which can be hard within politics. The layout also looks like a legitimate wikipedia page.

Now for things to improve on. Your article definitely needs more information on mediacracy, but I'm going to assume that you will fill out the counterargument and add more to the contents so that it has a lot more information on mediacracy since this is an interesting topic, in my opinion. Another issue would be to add a title to your page so it can be identified as explaining the concept of mediacracy. You'll definitely need some references so that Wikipedia doesn't take down your article. In your introduction, you could put more information on why mediacracy is relevant and why people should care.

Something that has always captured my attention with wikipedia pages are the pictures, so if you could find a graph or picture showing the prevalence of media in politics in different parts of the country that would be awesome. Also break down mediacracy in different parts of the world, or are you thinking of a specific region such as the US? In that case, you can look at the influences of different media outlets such as conservative Fox News v. liberal CNN? Or perhaps the influences of political pundits in politics such Jon Stewart, Stephen Colbert, and John Oliver? (I'll admit all of these satirists are liberal minded men but I don't know any conservative satirists.) Your article is organized, but with more information, perhaps background and causes could be their own sections?