Difference between revisions of "Talk:Social Media Addiction"
| Line 6: | Line 6: | ||
The author's opening paragraph does a great job being thorough while not wasting too many words as a summary. Something that might be worth considering moving forward is that Wikipedia summaries often restate or rephrase information contained elsewhere in the article, so some information (particularly the statistics) could still be worth including in the later sections. Additionally, as the article continue to grow with new sections and more core information, the summary should expand by a few sentences to summarize the new content. | The author's opening paragraph does a great job being thorough while not wasting too many words as a summary. Something that might be worth considering moving forward is that Wikipedia summaries often restate or rephrase information contained elsewhere in the article, so some information (particularly the statistics) could still be worth including in the later sections. Additionally, as the article continue to grow with new sections and more core information, the summary should expand by a few sentences to summarize the new content. | ||
2. Body in one or more sections<br> | 2. Body in one or more sections<br> | ||
| − | The body is in sections yes, and the organization is workable and functional for the content that is there now. | + | The body is in sections yes, and the organization is workable and functional for the content that is there now. From my personal experience as a reader, I would recommend that the section that describes the specifics of different platforms' methods to hook people be labelled something like "platforms" and the "Addiction" section dig more into generic principles around addiction. I really like the choice to start with a History section, it feels a lot like a real Wikipedia article. |
3. Statements backed up by references to reliable sources<br> | 3. Statements backed up by references to reliable sources<br> | ||
| + | Statements are all rooted in sources, examples like Pew Research and Statista reflect reliable academic examples. I do not know if citing Wikipedia is considered reliable or not and may be worth asking. | ||
| + | |||
==Clarity== | ==Clarity== | ||
Revision as of 04:51, 3 February 2023
Contents
Length
The article was about 980 words (not including citations), comfortably over the established minimum.
Structure
1. Opening paragraph that summarizes
The author's opening paragraph does a great job being thorough while not wasting too many words as a summary. Something that might be worth considering moving forward is that Wikipedia summaries often restate or rephrase information contained elsewhere in the article, so some information (particularly the statistics) could still be worth including in the later sections. Additionally, as the article continue to grow with new sections and more core information, the summary should expand by a few sentences to summarize the new content.
2. Body in one or more sections
The body is in sections yes, and the organization is workable and functional for the content that is there now. From my personal experience as a reader, I would recommend that the section that describes the specifics of different platforms' methods to hook people be labelled something like "platforms" and the "Addiction" section dig more into generic principles around addiction. I really like the choice to start with a History section, it feels a lot like a real Wikipedia article.
3. Statements backed up by references to reliable sources
Statements are all rooted in sources, examples like Pew Research and Statista reflect reliable academic examples. I do not know if citing Wikipedia is considered reliable or not and may be worth asking.
