Talk:Confessions page

Confession Pages

For this project, our group should research information about confession pages. This Wikipedia page is very vague and does not provide much information. We can discuss what confession pages are, who uses them, how to make them, and what content are on these pages. We can include examples and photos to back up our findings. I added all this information to our page and it just needs to be edited more. If any of your guys can find more information to add that would be good.

This is a source that we can use: http://www.buzzfeed.com/justinesharrock/the-stange-world-of-high-school-confession-pages

While viewing this page, I found that it needed information on how confessions pages are being used and about their recent popularity. Therefore, I added information about high schools also using confessions pages and how pages have to be screened. I also added some information about the recent growth of confessions pages in different places. You guys can feel free to expand on these topics. Here is a source: http://www.insidehighered.com/news/2013/02/26/college-confession-and-makeout-pages-raise-privacy-anonymity-issues. Waleedk (talk) 20:06, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

I found some information on U.S. schools wanting to remove Confessions Pages from social networks and how they are looking to start a trend against the development of such pages in the future. I added examples of this idea and explained this topic in further detail on our page. You guys can take a look at the link of this article and feel free to add more information on this topic. Here is the link: http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/thunder-bay/school-board-wants-facebook-confessions-pages-gone-1.1388340. Waleedk (talk) 23:48, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

Rensywu (talk) 16:34, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

I added some more information regarding the problems with confession pages, content on these pages, and why they have become popular in the recent years. I think we are in a good place because we show why students are so attracted to these pages while at the same time the problems that are occurring as a result of them. If we think we are missing important information post here so we can add before friday. Ryanloeb (talk) 18:43, 17 March 2014 (UTC)RyanLoeb

When first reviewing the information on the Confessions Page, I found that it lacked valuable sources. Therefore, I added information that focused on both the advantages and disadvantages of confession pages while incorporating the differences of confession pages at both the high school and collegiate levels. Additionally, I thought that this page lacked a clear and distinctive overview of confession pages and how it works. I planned revisions to this section to better understand how one's identity is concealed on confession pages. This is one source that incorporates these revisions: http://mashable.com/2013/03/19/facebook-confessions/ Mewilner (talk) 16:49, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Overall, the edits made to this Wiki article are really good. The article opens with a clear and understandable lead. This set me up to understand the whole article as I was unfamiliar with the term Confession Page. Although the structure is clear, I think the layout of the article could have been better. Instead of jumping right into how it works, I think the editors should’ve described what it does more first. Had the “How it Works” section been after the examples, content and recent popularity sections the article would’ve came full circle more. People would first understand the logistics first, and then learn how to design their own page. The content of each section seems to be balanced well, except I would have liked to see more in the content section. These confession pages revolve around the content on them, so I really want to know about this content when I read about confessions pages. To me it seems like the collaboration on these edits went smoothly. There are no hostile comments on the talk page, there are more than enough reliable sources and all topics are covered. All information appears to be that and not un-sourced opinions. Everything sited has a reference that is always a good thing. Another thing I liked on this page was that everything was specific. IF a detail was mentioned, the reader got the back-story and wasn’t left guessing. This was helpful in seeing the differences from school to school, and if the page involved good spirit or bullying. With all things considered, this is a good edit to this Wiki page, and with only a few changes could be great. Jnethy (talk) 16:39, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Peer Reviews

Well done on this edit! You included a lot of information and cited it well, and the article overall reads very easily and is not confusing in any part. Interesting that you included the how-to section, I'm not sure most readers would need it, but it was a nice touch. As a whole, the article reads a little bit like a school essay and you use "for example" a lot. I love the way that you included examples of what a confession would look like, this added interest to the article and also helped further define what a "confession" really is. The article was well organized, though the section titles are a bit lengthy. The coverage is neutral with both the negatives and positives of the issue covered, and I love the shout out to U of M! The structure is clear and all sections of the article are well balanced, with no one part being overwhelming. As a whole, very nice job. ALDu01 (talk) 17:46, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

It's very evident that you've done a lot of research, and have put a lot of thought into this article! Your contributions to the history, content, and examples sections were especially helpful in creating a thorough understanding of what a confession page is. These sections were presented in a logical and cohesive order. The problems section helped to balance out the bias towards one side of the issue. However, I do not find the individual how-to tutorials (Facebook, Twitter, Google Docs, & Survey Monkey) necessary because they take away from the clarity of the topic at hand. Perhaps it would have been more effective to provide links to external sites that showed these tutorials. Wuwa (talk) 16:01, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

I thought that you had quality sources and structured the article very well. Sources such as the Huffington Post and New York Times are reliable and give good information on the topic. The article is structured in a way that allows the reader to fully comprehend the topic before delving into specifics, such as how to make a confessions page yourself. The only issue with structure is that the examples section could be included as a subtopic in confession page content as it fits better there. It seems a little out of place at the very bottom of the article. Overall, I thought the article did a good job of covering both the positive and negative sides of confession pages without being too biased towards one side. Ultimately, I thought the article was well structured and gave good, reliable information. Mordover (talk) 20:55, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

This is one of the best wikipedia article's i've seen overall. Not only is there a ton of information, but it is organized excellently. It's easy to navigate, the language is proper, and it is visually stimulating. One of the reasons it's a good article is because of the way it's organized. It goes step by step, and even if you had no prior knowledge of the topic, you will know exactly what it is after reading through it. One thing that could be fixed is just the fact that it's so much information. It might be better to at some points provide a simple external link instead of writing a whole paragraph. When an article is so long, sometimes it makes the reader think they would understand it and its too complicated. Other than that, i can't think of much more to fix. Kylelf (talk) 23:47, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

I think that the introduction for this page gives a really good explanation of what a confessions page is. The initial example of Boulder High School was very helpful, and put the idea of confession pages in real time. The history aspect of the page was not too detailed while the overview was very precise with several quality examples and quotes from informative sources. The overview was great in that it gave several different perspectives on confessions pages and how they are hurting or helping their users. Using the University of Michigan twitter example was also very helpful to me and I am sure other Michigan students in understanding what confession pages actually are. Also the different ways to create a confessions page and the steps used to make them were very helpful, creative, and clear ways to present the information. I do feel though that the section about confession page content was a little repetitive and unnecessary. I also feel that the section on the recent popularity of confession pages did not really discuss the popularity as much as it just stated more specific examples of confessions. I thought that the section about different types of problems with confession pages was a really important addition that was very detailed and enlightening. The examples were a great way to end the Wikipedia article, but it would have been nice to have some high school examples as well. Overall, I feel this was a great Wikipedia page that gave me a great understanding about what a confessions page is, how it hurts and helps others, and how I could start my own or add to an already existing one.Youtie (talk) 20:21, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Overall, I think that the edits made to this article were very good. Not only is the page very easy to navigate, but a lot of relevant content was added as well. The structure of the page is logical and clear and each section contains clear writing and easy-to-absorb information. I especially like the "How It Works" section and subsections because it provides a very clear understanding of how to create a confessions page and the kind of things confessions pages usually contain. The article is very well-balanced in that each section contains an appropriate amount of information. I also think the "Examples" section was a nice touch because it shows real examples of what someone would find on a confessions page. There is a banner at the top that reads "This article does not cite any references or sources. Please help improve this article by adding citations to reliable sources. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed."--however this does not appear to be the case. My only critique is that some of the information may be somewhat biased because it is coming from students who may have had a negative experience with confessions pages because this article focuses mainly on the negatives of confessions pages and does not seem to address any positives that may exist. Gracemerrick (talk) 13:36, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

I thought this page was extremely well written, organized and used many credible sources. All of the information was very well written in a simplified form, which allowed for a clear understanding of the material. The organization of the page is in a logical order, allowing for readers to comprehend the topic before getting into the specifics. I liked how the page was broken down in five crucial components. These stubs were very appropriate and relevant to the topic. The page is easy to navigate and is visually stimulating. By including information on "How it Works," makes this page valuable for individuals who are interested in learning how to add to an existing confessions page or create their own. The section 'Problem with Confession Pages," was also very helpful due to its rich detail and good examples, so when one is interested in creating a confessions page they are cautious of potential problems. A very strong point the page contained was the many examples provided for how users can create a confessions page for sites such as Facebook, Twitter, Google doc or Survey Monkey. Although it is great to have these examples on the page, I think it would have been more resourceful to have an "Examples" stub at the end, so that way we understand all of the material before looking at examples, so we can use that information and apply it in the examples. The pages use credible sources such as the Huffington Post and the NY Times for convincing information and statistics. Stbarker (talk) 12:14, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

Agreeing with the previous peer reviews I feel that this group went very in depth about there topic. The sections about what the effects of these confessions pages seems like they have experienced this before and that they know what they are talking about. At the same time used links to other Wiki pages when the topic needed further clarification. However, the portion of the article where it talks about how to create your own pages on different social media sites seems off topic and are redundant. Most of the article seems to seems to be in chronological order from history to present, this makes reading the article more easy to follow and interesting. Although some segments of the article were reused, much of the text under Confessions Page Content was immediately repeated under Recent Popularity of Confessions Pages, so it would probably be better to combine these sections. After looking through the references at the end of the page I noticed that some of them are repeated multiple times. Overall, this article was very well edited, the content, effects, and pros/cons about confessions pages were very accurate. The examples provided at the end of the page was also a nice addition, since it gave us real examples from confessions pages around the country and what they would be typically about. Plus, most of the content shown gave viewpoints from both the viewer of the page and a poster from the page.WilliamJuang (talk) 20:02, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

I think that this article was very well edited. The group went into much greater detail than I would have expected on their topic, which is a good thing. It is apparent that their topic was well researched and well understood. I liked how they used examples of what might go on a confessions page, and also mentioned the controversy of confession pages themselves. I know that these types of pages have been taken down from social media sites, such as Facebook, so it would have been interesting to hear specific times when these pages were targeted and removed. I think that most of the sources the group sited are credible, which also adds to the quality of the editing. I really like that they went into details on how to set up a confessions page on different social sites. I can see this wikipedia article being very useful to someone who is looking for information about confession pages. There is not much for me to critique about the article other than sometimes the wording is repetitive -- but that can be easily fixed. Overall, they did a really good job! Rachelenzer (talk) 16:48, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

I agree with these peer reviews. The group did a very good job in providing information about their topic of confession pages. I believe they did an excellent job of separating the information into specific sections so it was easy for the readers to comprehend. Similarly, these sections were laid out very well, starting with the 'history and overview section' and going on to lead to how to create confession pages, then continuing to talk about their content. The part that is most successful about this is the 'how to create' sections, illustrating to the audience how to create accounts on the various types of confession pages. Another strong point of the group's edits was their use of bold terms to denote important information or instructions. This makes it very easy for readers to focus on the essential points in a long article. Additionally, the use of examples throughout the article, especially at the end, once again provides great reference for readers. These examples not only exemplify the ideas to the audience, but they also establish the credibility of the group's ideas. While some sections are created very well, the overall grammar of the page could be improved. The verbiage used in some sentences sounds a little bit too conversational and wordy. Additionally, a few typos can be found. In conclusion, the page was very well edited and informative. Conorirwin (talk) 00:17, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

Overall, I think this page was very well done. It is very clearly organized and has great structure. The page fluently transitions from history of Confession Pages to how they work, and then too some cool details such as how to make one. I would have figured that the page would end there, but the group went above and beyond and included reasons for recent popularity and problems. My favorite part of the page is the very last section, the examples. After reading all about Confession Pages, the tpyical reader would want to see some. This group put a few great examples! It's also worth noting that the previous reviews had very similar thoughts. My only criticisms are that a few typos can be found and some sections can be repetitive. Besides that, I though the group did very wellJoshhorowitz0707 (talk) 21:44, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

Response

Thank you for the feedback. Will make sure to look at grammar, typos, and wording. Will also make sure to make things more concise and more easy to read. Rensywu (talk) 15:02, 1 April 2014 (UTC)