The paper did a good job of reporting the stances and conversational nature of the Twitter community, but it seems that rather than analyzing, you are assuming some conclusion based on the data. For instance, under the second pillar you use the objective data about people saying what is on their mind and link that to the importance of people not wanting to engage in uncomfortable dialogue with others. If that conclusion is not an assumption and is rather something that you pulled from a scholarly article to back the statistic, it needs to be cited. Otherwise, can the claim really be made that people were not engaging in conversation because they don’t want to be in an uncomfortable position?
I think the report does connect the conversations to the topic of social interest, especially by including the different stances people have towards the war. In terms of communicating the hard data objectively, the execution was great. However, there is a lack of analysis that connects the data to literature on the subject that would solidify your findings.
I don’t know if “not in English” should be included in the stance category; also, the “not sure” category could stay, as it would be interesting to see why people that are unsure of their position on the war are tweeting about it, or it could be deleted as was mentioned in class, which would require writing in the methods section that not every tweet was coded. Also, the bar graphs show the count of tweets in that category, not the percentage. So when referencing figure 1, writing that 43% of tweets exhibited comments opposed to current tactics is wrong, and that it is actually 43 tweets out of the total number of tweets were opposed. The same goes for figure 2. A pie chart would give percentages, but the bar graphs are the numbers, not percentages.
The organization looks solid. The introduction contains a lot of information that is definitely useful for the purposes of your paper, but there are no citations that let the reader know where the information is coming from, and if that information is actually credible. You have a bibliography, so it’s obvious you have sources, but there needs to be in-text citations, as the information is not your original content.
I feel like it looks like I put a ton of feedback, but the paper really is looking good! You did a good job coming up with a topic, then narrowing it down to a hashtag, and then coding the Twitter data. These are also all suggestions, besides the bar graphs being numbers and not percentages, and the work needing in-text citations, so this just my opinion.
-Make it clearer about the hashtag and the connection between the 2. A lot of good background history is shown in the introduction.
-There is a good connection between the tweets and the topic being discussed. The report is successful in staying on topic.
-Linking the data to how it applies on twitter was well thought out and very successful. Giving the percentages was very useful.
-The format works well for the report and continued to stay on topic throughout the whole thing. I think it would be a good idea to add citations to have a better connection from sources to the twitter hashtag.
- The paper is looking very good and does a great job of staying on topic the whole time.
- Create a stronger connection and explain more about the concept of people not wanting to engage in conversations on the internet.
I plan to add more citations and references especially when introducing the topic and conflict itself. I also feel like I will need to add more details and explanation connecting the point I am trying to get to and the results that I found. I also may take out a few different categories listed within the charts that I created in order to better display the data. Other than a few typos that will be fixed there were not very many formatting issues.
Comments
intro-well worded and…
intro-well worded and explained a lot.
methods-good job
results: typo you wrote sows meaning shows. try to use specific tweets as quotes to help back up your chart percentages.
so far very factual and straight to the point good job
Peer review
Peer Review
-Make it clearer about the hashtag and the connection between the 2. A lot of good background history is shown in the introduction.
-There is a good connection between the tweets and the topic being discussed. The report is successful in staying on topic.
-Linking the data to how it applies on twitter was well thought out and very successful. Giving the percentages was very useful.
-The format works well for the report and continued to stay on topic throughout the whole thing. I think it would be a good idea to add citations to have a better connection from sources to the twitter hashtag.
- The paper is looking very good and does a great job of staying on topic the whole time.
Twitter review response
- Incorporate more tweets and citations
- Create a stronger connection and explain more about the concept of people not wanting to engage in conversations on the internet.
I plan to add more citations and references especially when introducing the topic and conflict itself. I also feel like I will need to add more details and explanation connecting the point I am trying to get to and the results that I found. I also may take out a few different categories listed within the charts that I created in order to better display the data. Other than a few typos that will be fixed there were not very many formatting issues.