User talk:Leslyesullivan/sandbox

Peer Review

Peer Review Checklist:

Is everything in the article relevant to the article topic? Is there anything that distracted you? Everything in the article is relevant to the subtopic of social media in Japan. The only thing that was "distracting" was the amount of "linked" terms in sentence 2. It is hard to really read the sentence because of all the blue. But, this does not mean that the sentence is incorrect in any way. It just means that it is possible that potential readers may have a hard time with reading that 1 sentence.

Is the article neutral? Are there any claims, or frames, that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? Everything in the article is neutral. You have done a great job at presenting the facts behind the topic without introducing your own opinions on the topic in your writing.

Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? I wouldn't say that viewpoints are missing or are overrepresented in your section. The only viewpoint you need to put in this section is the viewpoint of what presence of social media is in Japan and you have done a great job at doing that.

Check the citations. Do the links work? Does the source support the claims in the article? Is each fact supported by an appropriate, reliable reference? Where does the information come from? Are these neutral sources? If biased, is that bias noted? Your first reference/source is a blog. Even though we have been told to avoid blogs, they blog cites their statistical information in their reference list. One suggestion I would make is to actually go to that statistic website and get the information directly from the site instead of this blog. Your 3rd reference/source is great! You have looked at a graph and have presented the facts to readers in your one sentence in your article. Good job! Your 4th reference/source does not have any references. It appears to be a sort of press release and not a source. Where did they get the statistical information from on their website?

For your citations: You have completely copied and pasted word for word for your first sentence. You have completely copied and pasted word for word for your second sentence. You have properly taking the information from your 3rd source and have summarized the information into its own sentence. Good job! You have completely copied and pasted word for word for your fourth sentence.

Even though you have cited your sentences, you have copied verbatim from your sources. Furthermore, this is considered to be plagiarism. Please take a look at your sentences and try to summarize the information from your sources instead of copying them word-for-word.

Is any information out of date? Is anything missing that should be added? All of your information appears to be in date.

Overall Summary:

First, what does the article do well? Is there anything from your review that impressed you? Any turn of phrase that described the subject in a clear way? The article section does a good job at informing readers about what social media presence is in Japan.

What changes would you suggest the author apply to the article? Why would those changes be an improvement? What's the most important thing the author could do to improve the article? Although you have written a very statistical and fact based article, there are major citation and reference issues in the article. Three out of four of your sentences in the article have been plagiarized word-for-word from the original article in which they came from. According to Wikipedia's policy, you have plagiarized if you have copied word-for-word without a citation, copied word-for-word with a citation, or if you have paraphrased too closely to the original text. Some suggestions to avoid this is for you to read the source and try to sum an idea up in your own words.

End thoughts: you have done a good job. Now you just need to re-summarize the ideas in your sentences in your own words to make an article that will not be flagged by the Wikipedia community. Keep up the good work!

Cpears8 (talk) 20:33, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

Peer Review #2

Peer Review Checklist:

1. Is everything in the article relevant to the article topic? Is there anything that distracted you?

All the information is relevant to the topic and presented clearly. Nothing is very distracting or off topic. 

2. Is the article neutral? Are there any claims, or frames, that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?

Nothing is biased, it is straight statistics. 

3. Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?

The only view point this article needs is the presence of social media, which is done very well. Anything more would almost have to have an opinion, which is unnecessary.  

4. Check the citations. Do the links work? Does the source support the claims in the article? Is each fact supported by an appropriate, reliable reference? Where does the information come from? Are these neutral sources? If biased, is that bias noted?

Only issue is the word for word copying in most of your sentences, which is plagiarism. The only source you did not do this with is your third one. This is probably the best source and one you could draw a little more information from. The fourth source looks like some type of blog and I cannot see where they pulled their statistics from. 

For your citations:

1. Is any information out of date? Is anything missing that should be added?

All the information is of this year and is up to date. 

Overall Summary:

1. First, what does the article do well? Is there anything from your review that impressed you?

The article is very factual and without opinion. I loved how concise and to the point it was. 

2. What changes would you suggest the author apply to the article? Why would those changes be an improvement? What's the most important thing the author could do to improve the article?

A good suggestion would be to make it your own work and to not copy word for word. It makes the article more original and keeps you out of plagiarism trouble. One thing you could do to change the article would be to look into why the graph in source three dipped and spiked during this year. Was the country having digital divide issues, was there a reason more people got on Facebook instead of Twitter in January? It might lead to nothing but it also might give you a little more to elaborate in your article. 

3. End thoughts:

Great information but double check your sources and use your own words to relay those facts. 

Kcarey2 (talk) 19:52, 28 October 2018 (UTC)Kcarey2

Briget Sibley - Peer Review

Social Media in Japan[edit source] The most utilized social media platforms in the Japanese industry are Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, and Line.[1] Line (styled as LINE) is a freeware app for instant communication on electronic devices such as smartphones, tablets (tablet computers sounds wonky), and personal computers.[2] Statistics show that Facebook use in Japan is at 47.75%, Twitter use is at 19.33%, YouTube use is at 13.9%, Pinterest use is at 10.69%, Instagram use is at 4.93%, and Tumblr use is at 2.29%.[3] As of 2017, nearly 100% of Japanese people are online, smartphone penetration is nearing 80%, and over half of the population is using some form of social media in Japan.[4]

Overall this article is a very strong draft. You did a good job of adhering to the "Wiki Tone" in your article. Some plagiarism in a couple sentences in the article that definitely needs to be addressed as soon as possible. There is a difference between using information from as source and blatantly copy and pasting it as your own words. Very few grammatical errors and most were just my personal opinion of how it should read. It was very clear what your section was about from the start and the information inside backed up your topic well. As a whole I think adding a few more sources will make your section complete and stronger. Great job!

Response to peer review

In response to the peer review, I changed the sentences to not have too much plagerism still using the Wiki voice. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Leslyesullivan (talk • contribs) 05:30, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

Peer Review Response

Our reviews were very honest and helpful. We will most definitely take into consideration the comments. One major issue for our article is citing word for word on sources, which is now something we are aware of. Blake and I will correct this mistake and keep it in mind when we continue our writing. Otherwise, it is helpful to know our article is to the point and un-biased.Lcheramie (talk) 05:42, 5 November 2018 (UTC)