Andrewcm123

#SayHerName Peer Review

 I think the grammatical revision you did was pretty minor, but made the section clearer and easier to follow. The information you added towards the end was an interesting and helpful addition, but I would get rid of the introductory phrase "according to" because it sounds less like a Wikipedia article and more like a research paper for class. 

The "Supporters" first paragraph/introductory section seems a little unsubstantial as it is. Are there additional notable figures who have publicly supported the movement? Or perhaps other civil organizations that have endorsed it/the hashtag? Those would be questions to consider/answer in the "Supporters" section that would make it more substantial/relevant if you wanted to make more changes. I also think that certain parts of this section tie it very closely to the section on Social Media Presence, but it is distinguishable enough, so good call on making it a separate sub-section. 

In the "Suggestions" section, can you clarify if the AAPF's Take Action Guide was specific to the #SayHerName movement or are these just general guidelines? Also, is "Suggestions" a neutral/objective sub-section to have? I think that's an important question to consider. 

I also don't know if having the "Criticism" sub-section under the "Results" section really makes sense for the flow of the article. That might need to be its own section, because the criticism isn't really entirely/necessarily a "Result" of the movement. Although without it, the "Results" section is rather unsubstantial, which creates some tension to consider. Maybe consider incorporating "Social Media Presence" under the "Results" section?

<nowiki>Overall, I think it's a great start to your edits on the #SayHerName article! I personally didn't find anything you added to be irrelevant or inappropriate to the article and I think that most of your edits provided clarity to the subject! Diakhm (talk) 07:58, 14 March 2017 (UTC)