User talk:Itstrinh/sandbox

There were a lot of mixed comments about the subcategories, so we've decided to scratch the original idea of dividing it into "types of movements," but rather doing it under location/origin. This is less subjective.Thoughts? We also edited some grammar and wording of the hashtags, as well as included new changes to address down the line. Itstrinh (talk) 06:12, 28 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Peer Review The additions to the article are informative and has credible sources. The tone is neutral mostly and not distracting. Good work so far! Somethings that can be potentially improved:

The claims in #PrayforParis starting with the sentence "Just as how Facebook..." seems unsupported. It is not exactly clear what "indirect domino effect" is and "unraveled" means, and the sentences that follow seem to be too strong and not wiki-like, especially the conclusion of "leaving a mark ... for the future of our society."
Not sure if the prefix of "Human Rights" is necessary for the reorganization of hashtags.
It is arguable that the UmbrellaReovlution is also a movement around human rights.
In addition, ShoutYourAbortion and BringBackOurGirls are not exclusively feminist movements, and NoDAPL isn't exclusively an indigenous rights movement.
If possible, it is constructive to explain the criteria of what makes a hashtag worthy to be included on this list.

Jackyliang (talk) 05:40, 20 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Peer Review: When comparing the original Wikipedia page with your sandbox showcasing your team’s planned improvements for the page I was impressed by how many improvement you were able to come up with! I like the fact that you are planning on dividing the different hashtags into their general topics and then structuring them into subcategories. This will definitely help the viewer find specific hashtags faster. I also like your team’s idea of adding the category ‘The Impacts of Online Movements’ and that you will be mentioning both the beneficial as well as the detrimental impacts that can accompany an online movement. This will allow the reader to make up their own mind on this topic since they will be provided with both positive and negative aspects. Last but not least, the idea of adding the category of ‘Important figures’ is awesome! It gives the reader more background knowledge on who created the hashtag or who was involved in the activism. By hyperlinking the names of the individuals listed under this rubric to their Wikipedia page allows the reader to gather more detailed information on the individual.

Great job! Can’t wait to see what your final version will look like! Blogger192AC (talk) 20:15, 20 October 2017 (UTC)Blogger192AC[reply]

Peer Review: You did a great job on adding more hashtags to the article. You also did a great job on explaining the different hashtags. I like how you organized them into subcategories, which will make them easy to find. You guys are adding a lot of different and important hashtags that weren't previously there. I would just edit and proof read them again. I like the way you guys wrote it though, it got straight to the facts and points. Sounded exactly like a wikipedia article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Calstudent123 (talk • contribs) 20:40, 20 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Daisy's Peer Review[edit]

Great job including many hashtags. This will increase the length of the article substantially. I would recommend for you to focus on the grammar and spelling throughout the draft since there were a couple mistakes found. Additionally, to make it more "encyclopedic", I would recommend editing sentences and replacing some words. Lastly, although each are separate hashtag, the flow of one to another can be improved by making sure a voice is constant throughout. One seemed to have a stronger voice while the others were much more ambiguously written. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Daisygmendez (talk • contribs) 02:46, 21 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]