Peer Review - Olivia Dey

- Great amount of content and information, also a sufficient amount of credible sources were used. Few sentence structure and grammatical errors but they were minor. - For the most part throughout the article there is an encyclopedic tone but there are places that can be slightly misleading. "Resistbot is a "safe" way...", using the word safe in the context is swaying the user to agree that that the software is effective/they should use it. - I also recommend adding large titles for each section of the article by putting equal signs before and after the header, which creates large and bold sections which allows for a more organized article. Oliviadey (talk) 23:54, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Peter Orfanos Peer Review

Your article is very informative and builds a solid foundation about the app and its history. I think that when you explain the app's functionality you could dive a little deeper into how it works; for example, the part that you said users can use resistbot through facebook messenger didn't really make sense to me but if you explained it further I think that could be a good piece to the article. I changed a word that didn't make sense in context but aside from that grammar and word choice seemed fine. I also really liked the way that you broke the article up, worked very fluidly. Peterorfanos (talk) 00:20, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]