This was a very clear and concisely written paper that gave a lot of insight into the NRA and the arguments surrounding it. The twitter community analyzed was also thoroughly explained. One area that I would say could be improved is the papers connection to the social impact concept. Although knowing what was being said and the content of the arguments being presented it would also be good to know what types of people were saying these things and why. The graphs and visuals created were well put together and refined but the formatting of the paper could be improved by placing those pictures in areas that specifically talk about their results. The graphs were never directly talked about and explained. Otherwise the formatting of the paper was well done.
I think that the report analyzes and offers insight to the Twitter community in which is being studied for your particular topic. I do think that you should speak more upon the background/history on the NRA rather than the history about Twitter. This way, you will be able to later strengthen the focus on the community within your report.
Your report does connect the Twitter conversation to you social interest topic, however, it is not very strong. I think that you need to use a few pieces of cited information in order to support and explain exactly what the people are supporting within their tweets, so that the reader can understand why. For example, if someone says that they are pro gun rights, then find some information in which explains why that is so.
I think that within your visual graphs, you should narrow down some of your categories. For instance, in the ‘Count of tweet doing’ graph, you should remove about half of the categories, and just leave the most important ones. This will be a lot easier for the reader to understand.
I think that you need more pieces of cited information in order to make this research report much stronger. Also, with the more quotes, you could add another paragraph because the paper is on the shorter side, and you would have space to support those quotes with a strong explanation.
The paper does a good job of outlining the Twitter community’s collective reaction about the topic by stating the stances adopted by the community and providing examples of individual Tweets. I think it’s interesting how the tones of the conversation differed based on peoples’ stances, ranging from aggression to sarcasm. It may be worth looking more into the members’ political affiliations along with their stances on the shutdown of NRATV, since you mention that there were right-wing supporters of the termination. I don’t know if that information would be easy to retrieve or code, but that’s one thing I think would be interesting since the study looks into peoples’ stances on the NRA, which is inherently political, and also this event that the paper studies.
I think you did a good job linking the Twitter conversation to broader social and political issues. The conclusion states the importance of the NRA and how this event affects, or doesn’t affect, different aspects of the community.
I mentioned the suggestion to add a separate code under the first bullet point, although again, it is merely a suggestion. The pie chart is great; it shows the codes clearly and is mentioned in the text. It may also be interesting to chart the rhetorical appeal, in specific the aggression, sarcasm, etc., for the purposes of getting a more nuanced look into not only the public’s stance, but the ways in which it is conveyed. It may also be cool to see the visualization of the conversations with the arrows (I don’t know what it’s called) that shows who is mentioned, what direction the conversation is going, etc., since a significant portion of the paper surrounds Dana Loesch and I’m sure she is tweeted at (@DLoesch) a lot.
The format is set up well. The introduction provides a lot of background information on Twitter and the NRA, but do not include in-text citations to tell the reader where you’re obtaining that information. There are also parts of the discussion that seem to need in-text citations, such as when you mention the increasing public awareness of Dana Loesch after the school shooting. As a reader, I also don’t know who you’re referring to in the discussion when it says- “a few people were arguing against those who were happy …… and were saying things like ____.” I’m also not sure if it’s just the way the document loaded on my laptop or if it’s an issue with the document format, but there is a large gap at the bottom of the fourth page.
The paper looks really good! The introduction is informative, the process of collecting data is detailed well, and the discussion/ conclusion tie everything together. Besides some logistical document formatting and citations, and the possibility of adding a code, I have no other thoughts!
1. Make more connections between the tones of the tweets and the political affiliation of the tweeter to see if there is a trend. Add more in-text citations so the reader knows where I am getting my information.
2. I plan to reread the articles in my works cited and add in information that can help the reader have a better understanding of the topic. I also am going to look over the coding and see if I can notice any new patterns that I could potentially expand on in my paper.
3. I might try and add the photo showing the conversations under the #NRA. Many of the tweets @DLoesch which means there are a lot of people talking/commenting on her. I also might delete some of the smaller sections of "count of tweet doing" graph since some of them are irrelevant and I don't mention them.
4. I will reorder some of my discussion so it flows better and is easier to understand. Add more quotes throughout the discussion in order to make my paper longer.
Comments
Twitter review
This was a very clear and concisely written paper that gave a lot of insight into the NRA and the arguments surrounding it. The twitter community analyzed was also thoroughly explained. One area that I would say could be improved is the papers connection to the social impact concept. Although knowing what was being said and the content of the arguments being presented it would also be good to know what types of people were saying these things and why. The graphs and visuals created were well put together and refined but the formatting of the paper could be improved by placing those pictures in areas that specifically talk about their results. The graphs were never directly talked about and explained. Otherwise the formatting of the paper was well done.
Peer Revisions
I think that the report analyzes and offers insight to the Twitter community in which is being studied for your particular topic. I do think that you should speak more upon the background/history on the NRA rather than the history about Twitter. This way, you will be able to later strengthen the focus on the community within your report.
Your report does connect the Twitter conversation to you social interest topic, however, it is not very strong. I think that you need to use a few pieces of cited information in order to support and explain exactly what the people are supporting within their tweets, so that the reader can understand why. For example, if someone says that they are pro gun rights, then find some information in which explains why that is so.
I think that within your visual graphs, you should narrow down some of your categories. For instance, in the ‘Count of tweet doing’ graph, you should remove about half of the categories, and just leave the most important ones. This will be a lot easier for the reader to understand.
I think that you need more pieces of cited information in order to make this research report much stronger. Also, with the more quotes, you could add another paragraph because the paper is on the shorter side, and you would have space to support those quotes with a strong explanation.
Overall, your paper was good!
Peer review
Revisions
1. Make more connections between the tones of the tweets and the political affiliation of the tweeter to see if there is a trend. Add more in-text citations so the reader knows where I am getting my information.
2. I plan to reread the articles in my works cited and add in information that can help the reader have a better understanding of the topic. I also am going to look over the coding and see if I can notice any new patterns that I could potentially expand on in my paper.
3. I might try and add the photo showing the conversations under the #NRA. Many of the tweets @DLoesch which means there are a lot of people talking/commenting on her. I also might delete some of the smaller sections of "count of tweet doing" graph since some of them are irrelevant and I don't mention them.
4. I will reorder some of my discussion so it flows better and is easier to understand. Add more quotes throughout the discussion in order to make my paper longer.