Difference between revisions of "Talk:BeReal"
(peer review) |
|||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
The article is 1005 words which is above the 1000-word minimum requirement. The final article should hit around 2500 words or above but this is on the right track. The article so far does follow a good structure. It starts with a lead that describes the technology issue of interest, the app BeReal. The lead objectively describes the technology along with describing its purpose and the general functionality of the app without delving into the ethical issues or the more technical features of the app which is good. The body of the article is currently divided into three parts, the history, features, and public reception of the app. The features section is further divided into parts that describe the functionality of the app such as memories and reactions and parts of the phone that they use such as the front and back cameras. The references are listed at the end of the article but t follow the correct format, they should also be linked as references using the <ref> “source” </ref> format that renders as a superscript above the area in the article where the source is referenced (this will also automatically create the references section in the article so that you don’t have to make it yourself). Doing this early and as you go on will make it easier than doing all of the references in the end. The issue at stake is clear to me because the writing is very straightforward. While the ethical issues haven’t fully been elaborated on, there is a build to them such that including the ethics would flow well. There are some statements throughout the article that indicate possible ethical issues. The article is objective and all opinions are reported as opinions of the authors of referenced articles, not of the author of this wiki itself, and multiple sides are shown. The article looks good so far. | The article is 1005 words which is above the 1000-word minimum requirement. The final article should hit around 2500 words or above but this is on the right track. The article so far does follow a good structure. It starts with a lead that describes the technology issue of interest, the app BeReal. The lead objectively describes the technology along with describing its purpose and the general functionality of the app without delving into the ethical issues or the more technical features of the app which is good. The body of the article is currently divided into three parts, the history, features, and public reception of the app. The features section is further divided into parts that describe the functionality of the app such as memories and reactions and parts of the phone that they use such as the front and back cameras. The references are listed at the end of the article but t follow the correct format, they should also be linked as references using the <ref> “source” </ref> format that renders as a superscript above the area in the article where the source is referenced (this will also automatically create the references section in the article so that you don’t have to make it yourself). Doing this early and as you go on will make it easier than doing all of the references in the end. The issue at stake is clear to me because the writing is very straightforward. While the ethical issues haven’t fully been elaborated on, there is a build to them such that including the ethics would flow well. There are some statements throughout the article that indicate possible ethical issues. The article is objective and all opinions are reported as opinions of the authors of referenced articles, not of the author of this wiki itself, and multiple sides are shown. The article looks good so far. | ||
| + | |||
| + | |||
| + | ===Peer Review #2 - Shruti Swaminathan=== | ||
| + | |||
| + | The article meets the word length requirement at 2400 words. The author clearly defines the app in the opening paragraph and has followed a logical outline in the rest of the article while exploring the features, ethical concerns and effect on pop culture. I found the organization of the body paragraphs to be clear. The "Features" section provided a solid overview of the app and was separated by headings. The references are cited well and come from reputable sources. Due to the nature and recency of the app, many of the sources seem to come from news articles that remain unbiased and provide a direct account of an individual's user experience. The ethical concerns are also made very clear and separated by heading. The concerns mentioned in the article are reported from an objective point of view and the author cites direct sources when explaining the responses to the controversies as well. When explaining each issue, the author almost always examines the multiple perspectives involved in the issue as well. Toward the end of the article when mentioning the other apps that have adopted similar features to BeReal, I would suggest possibly adding the perspective of the other app creators regarding the reason for the adoption. The author also seems to have taken into consideration the comment above regarding the references section. | ||
Latest revision as of 20:36, 14 February 2023
The article is 1005 words which is above the 1000-word minimum requirement. The final article should hit around 2500 words or above but this is on the right track. The article so far does follow a good structure. It starts with a lead that describes the technology issue of interest, the app BeReal. The lead objectively describes the technology along with describing its purpose and the general functionality of the app without delving into the ethical issues or the more technical features of the app which is good. The body of the article is currently divided into three parts, the history, features, and public reception of the app. The features section is further divided into parts that describe the functionality of the app such as memories and reactions and parts of the phone that they use such as the front and back cameras. The references are listed at the end of the article but t follow the correct format, they should also be linked as references using the [1] format that renders as a superscript above the area in the article where the source is referenced (this will also automatically create the references section in the article so that you don’t have to make it yourself). Doing this early and as you go on will make it easier than doing all of the references in the end. The issue at stake is clear to me because the writing is very straightforward. While the ethical issues haven’t fully been elaborated on, there is a build to them such that including the ethics would flow well. There are some statements throughout the article that indicate possible ethical issues. The article is objective and all opinions are reported as opinions of the authors of referenced articles, not of the author of this wiki itself, and multiple sides are shown. The article looks good so far.
Peer Review #2 - Shruti Swaminathan
The article meets the word length requirement at 2400 words. The author clearly defines the app in the opening paragraph and has followed a logical outline in the rest of the article while exploring the features, ethical concerns and effect on pop culture. I found the organization of the body paragraphs to be clear. The "Features" section provided a solid overview of the app and was separated by headings. The references are cited well and come from reputable sources. Due to the nature and recency of the app, many of the sources seem to come from news articles that remain unbiased and provide a direct account of an individual's user experience. The ethical concerns are also made very clear and separated by heading. The concerns mentioned in the article are reported from an objective point of view and the author cites direct sources when explaining the responses to the controversies as well. When explaining each issue, the author almost always examines the multiple perspectives involved in the issue as well. Toward the end of the article when mentioning the other apps that have adopted similar features to BeReal, I would suggest possibly adding the perspective of the other app creators regarding the reason for the adoption. The author also seems to have taken into consideration the comment above regarding the references section.- ↑ “source”
