User talk:Rmcnamara2/sandbox

Good analysis, Rebecca. Your point about social media is well-taken. Also, I like how you would rephrase some of these sentences.Carolyncunningham (talk) 21:03, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Those do look like reliable sources, Rebecca. I especially like the Science Direct source. Keep moving forward.Carolyncunningham (talk) 21:56, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Rebekah, I'm glad you chose such an interesting article! Here is my peer review:

First, what does the article do well?

    I think the article provides plenty of information on what a filter bubble is. If a reader was completely unfamiliar with the concept, the WikiPedia article would be a great starting place. 

Is there anything from your review that impressed you?

    I thought the amount of citations that you want to add (that are current and relevant) are impressive! I came to the same conclusion that you did about the some of the information on the article page needed to be updated, and your sources look like the perfect way to accomplish that. 

Any turn of phrase that described the subject in a clear way?

    The quote from Pariser: "First, you figure out who people are and what they like. Then, you provide them with content and services that best fit them. Finally, you tune to get the fit just right. Your identity shapes your media." This describes in simple language what the complicated process actually does. 

What changes would you suggest the author apply to the article? Why would those changes be an improvement?

     I would recommend trimming the length of the article. There are some parts that read like a play-by-play of Pariser's Ted Talk and too much re-phrasing within the article. I think what the article needs is someone to go through with an editor's eye and take out all of the fluff. Shortening the article to reflect the concept in a clear, simple way would be helpful to readers. I believe the article could be more effective if it read less like a magazine article and more like an extended definition. Also, I think the second image on the page (of the globes) is distracting and confusing. I would recommend replacing that image, if you can find a more appealing breakdown of the concept to replace it with. 

What's the most important thing the author could do to improve the article?

    Updating the sources, which you plan on doing, would be the biggest improvement to the article. 

Did you notice anything about the article you reviewed that could be applicable to your own article?

    My article is significantly shorter, but this does make me want to edit my article for tone and brevity, once I've made my additions.

Tmendo26 (talk) 18:51, 21 April 2019 (UTC)TMendo26, Taryn Mendoza, 21 April 2019[reply]