User talk:Harperclouston/sandbox

Rubin-Sigler, Jasper; Peer Review 1 I liked your article a lot and actually have never heard of Miracle Messages before this. I think the main thing I thought could be improved was that you find yourself repeating previous statements throughout the sections. I think maybe it’s because there just isn’t a lot of information to begin with, but maybe use the lead section to just introduce the idea of Miracle Messages by like talking about how social media can be used to make a good impact in the world- save the specifics for later. I was also thinking it would be cool to add a section that had like specific user reviews (if they exist), I know you mention the founder and how he dealt with homelessness within his own life, but maybe a specific example of a Miracle Message individual. Grammar and all that seemed good and the article was quite well written, to add maybe some depth to the article (if you wanted), maybe add in an “ethical” section to it (possibly about the ethics of the service and how it can be attributed to ones duty to help others etc.)- but totally up to you. Overall really good start in my opinion and an interesting article.

Response: I agree with the repeating of information throughout the article. I had trouble finding a lot of information because it is relatively new and unheard of, so this was a struggle for me. I guess the solution to this would be just making the lead section shorter like Jasper said above so that I'm not repeating in the actual content sections. I think the specific user review is a good idea and there are a lot of interviews of "success stories" so to say that I could use for this. Harperclouston (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 16:46, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

Instructor Comments

Excellent work Harper. I agree with the changes you discuss making above--shortening the lead section to avoid repeating information, and potentially adding more details of a specific case or two. However, it looks great as is and you can go ahead and create your article whenever you are ready! One other small change: when you say "the reunions are within 3 weeks," I found that unclear. Reunions typically occur within three weeks? Or users only have three weeks to try to make a reunion? (Also -- What about cases that don't end in reunion? I'm curious about those. Are there some? Do they just stay open indefinitely? And now that I'm asking questions -- how are the cases even shared? Crowdsourced through social media? All you say is that volunteers are responsible for "delivering the recording to family members through social media" -- but what does that look like? How do they know who the family members are -- do they have to sleuth it out, what if they can't find them?) You don't have to answer all these questions, the article looks great as is, but these are directions it could go. In our meeting, let's strategize appropriate hyperlinks and "See also" to try to get this article well integrated into the Wikipedia network. --Jmstew2 (talk) 02:05, 4 April 2017 (UTC)