User talk:Breezelily/sandbox

I think that you are off to a strong start. I think that your lead section could be more representative of your entire piece. I am guessing that you will be inserting this onto the Islamic State Page, and I am not sure if a description of ISIS itself would be necessary there. Perhaps your lead should be more about the different sections of your subtopic. I think that one area that you could expand is the Internet Social Media Policy section, perhaps where you discuss who within ISIS is allowed to post on social media, or if there is any information on ISIS's marketing department, persay. In addition, I think that you will need to incorporate more citations and clarify the coordination of the citations to the article itself. Lastly, I think that you will need to adjust your formatting, using the headers that wikipedia reccomends. Overall, it seems like you are off to a good start. Daniella Wenger (talk) 23:13, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

Peer Review: Trinh's Comments

I will agree with Daniella in that I think your current draft is very strong and detailed. I liked the categories that you used to break the topic down into different sub-sections. I found the section regarding "Internal Social Media Policy" to be very confusing in that I am not sure what the headline means and when I read the section, I don't fully understand why their members can't use social media if they are using social media for recruitment purposes. Some other minor suggestions for the page in general includes linking back to the main ISIS page for more information, if necessary. I would also try to avoid explaining things in parantheses, and instead re-word the sentence. An example of this is in: "Given certains features of the Dark Web (it requires special browser in order to access, it is also untraceable) tracking down ISIS’s activities on the Dark Web has been extremely difficult for anti terrorism specialists." In the critiques section, I think it would be helpful to expand on the five rules that you listed. As a reader, I found myself wanting to hear more about that. Lastly, there are a couple of grammatical errors throughout the article that should be addressed (for instance in the first line, know should be known). Otherwise, great! Itstrinh (talk) 23:21, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

Hi Breezelily! First off, great job! The amount of detail shows how much effort you put into this! A few pointers for a stronger argument.

1) Definitely more citations will do you more good than harm. This will strengthen your argument as a while as well. 2) The section in regards to using social media for recruiting was a little confusing and I can't really understand what you are trying to say. Maybe cutting down a number of words and being a little more concise with your word choice may help.

But other than that, this was great! Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Samjchae (talk • contribs) 03:54, 21 October 2017 (UTC)