MelodyYifan

Welcome!

Hello, MelodyYifan, and welcome to Wikipedia! My name is Adam and I work with the Wiki Education Foundation; I help support students who are editing as part of a class assignment.

I hope you enjoy editing here. If you haven't already done so, please check out the student training library, which introduces you to editing and Wikipedia's core principles. You may also want to check out the Teahouse, a community of Wikipedia editors dedicated to helping new users. Below are some resources to help you get started editing.

Handouts
Choosing an article to edit Editing an article • Add images to articles Citing sources on Wikipedia
Additional Resources
You can find answers to many student questions on our Q&A site, ask.wikiedu.org

If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to contact me on my talk page. Adam (Wiki Ed) (talk) 00:29, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

Multimedia Journalism Peer Review

Your article, Multimedia Journalism, is excellent. It is overall very well-researched and written. I believe it is actually far beyond the requirements for this assignment, in terms of length (mine is signifigantly shorter). It covers the topic and the variety of perspectives involved in great detail, and using credible sources. The main changes that I would suggest is to edit it to make it somewhat more concise. Further, I think the tone of the article is somewhat not like most of the articles on Wikipedia. Most articles are written with fairly simple and easily understandable language, even when dealing with complex topics. In this case, it does read like an academic paper, which may be a little more challenging than a typical Wikipedia article. However overall, it is an extensive, very well researched article and I look forward to see what the Wikipedia community does with it. I have further broken down some of my criticisms:

Lead Section - Your lead section is good. However I think it may get into too much detail, particularly the third paragraph. I believe the first two paragraphs would be sufficient to convey what this article is about.

Structure - The article is well-structured, and organized in a logical manner.

Balance - The article is well-balanced and certainly covers a breadth and depth of information related to the topic in a ballanced way.

Neutrality - The article is written from a neutral point of view, and covers all of the relevant perspectives related to the topic in a way that doesn’t bias any particular one.

Reliable Sources - As the article is largely discussing academic arguments and points of view, it directly sources those specific academic articles. Thus, it is extensively sourced, and does use reliable sources.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Hothamwater (talk • contribs) April 20, 2017 (UTC)

Peer Review Review

Hmmm... I'm afraid this Peer Review illustrates the shortcomings of the whole Wiki Ed enterprise. I basically stopped reading the article in question after a couple of sections because it was filled with problematic, quasi-academic prose that verges on gobbledy-gook. I then discovered that it was all written by one editor as a student project. Small wonder that it comes across more like a personal essay than an encyclopedia article. <large sigh> The Peer Reviewer first calls it "excellent" and "well-written" -- but then raises questions about the "tone" being overly "academic", perhaps too "challenging" as a result. S/he is onto something, but doesn't quite get to the essence of the problem. I would put things more simply: throwing together a series of ungrammatical strings of undefined terms doesn't take the place of lucid explanation. Anomalous+0 (talk) 11:53, 23 February 2022 (UTC)