User talk:Mbeach5/sandbox

Celeste's peer review

The concerns I have are as follows:

instances of informal tone, ex: "(or none of it is interesting enough)"
only one cited source in the section
no global aspect
explanation of information overload that is not necessary
instances of unclear wording, ex: "their work institutions expecting individuals to gather loads of information"

The section is long enough, but not all of the information presented is relevant to the topic which is social media. Also, while it is written impartially, many sentences feel too casual. Word choice could be improved.

It is a good framework for the section, but it does need some work. Cmaffe3 (talk) 22:32, 28 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Peer Review by Lcheramie

I think this new section is very informational, but at times feels very informal. Maybe work on writing in an "encyclopedic" tone. I also found it confusing to understand and slightly repetitive. Lcheramie (talk) 01:24, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Shaina Summary to Peer Review:

I have addressed the peer reviews on my section of the articles. I think we could work on our wording to make sure that the article addition does not sound as informal as it is now. I do not feel it should be to formal, but I recognize places that we could adjust our wording or sentence structure. I like the comment about only having one source because that is a place we could definitely add to in our final draft. While the source cited was mine, I feel we, as a group, could add more sources to make our work more reliable. We could even add a link to another Wikipedia page for viewers looking for further information on part of our topic. I feel as though our definition of information overload is strong and am not sure if that should taken out, considering not all readers will know the definition. We can work to make the article more fluid because we all wrote pieces individually and compiled them. For the final I think we should mostly work on our tone and wording along with the fluidity of our article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shainamgrace (talk • contribs) 02:43, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Martiana Summary to Peer Review

After reading the peer review, I also agree that the tone and structure can be improved. Right now it sounds like more of an essay than at article. We will definitely have to consolidate each of our different writing styles in order to make the one that is expected in a Wikipedia article. We definitely need more sources formally added to the article itself, but they are located in the sandbox so that other users will see we are not pulling information out of thin air. I also feel that the definition is needed. From personal experience, I have had to go to other wikipedia articles in order to define what I was reading in a single article that they could have defined at the beginning of a section. I feel that links to other Wikipedia articles should be for additional information, not the main definition. With all that being said, we have many improvements that have to be made before the section is final and ready to go. Mbeach5 (talk) 04:52, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Brock Peer Review Reponse

After looking over your review, I do agree that it is a little too casual. I was never the best with academic and encyclopedic writing, but I will certainly have a thesaurus handy. As for the information overload definition, I'll have to agree on your stance on it since it is already explained at the beginning of the article. Thanks for the input and the constructive criticism! Brawkfaux (talk) 05:26, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]