User:Evaluation/sandbox

FCC v. Pacifica Foundation
Content:


 * Is everything in the article relevant to the article topic? Is there anything that distracted you?
 * The content (Description, Holding, Impact) all seemed highly relevant and well-organized.
 * The Carlin quote seems unnecessary.
 * Is any information out of date? Is anything missing that could be added?
 * The line at the very bottom about self-censoring technology and its effects on this ruling should be considered further in the present day!
 * What else could be improved?
 * More about the impact of the ruling on the FCC's present operations.

Tone:


 * Is the article neutral? Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
 * Seems neutral.
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
 * Maybe more viewpoints about the ruling itself (like the final line) would give a better idea of how this ruling fits into censorship rulings throughout the time period.

Talk Page:


 * What kinds of conversations, if any, are going on behind the scenes about how to represent this topic?
 * One important point about removing an irrelevant piece of proposed legislation
 * Source links no longer work
 * How is the article rated? Is it a part of any WikiProjects?
 * Part of 3 WikiProjects
 * How does the way Wikipedia discusses this topic differ from the way we've talked about it in class?
 * We would have likely included much more context and information about its impact to this day.

Book censorship in the United States
Content:


 * Is everything in the article relevant to the article topic? Is there anything that distracted you?
 * Phrased exactly according to guidelines, very clear.
 * Is any information out of date? Is anything missing that could be added?
 * maybe find a more official definition from a case
 * Historical beginning: "a very prevalent form of book censorship in the United States was book burning." .... check this fact.
 * Look into more overarching acts that affected censorship, rather than state laws/individual books banned.
 * List of other banned books...? Why include a list that has to be incomplete by definition?
 * What else could be improved?
 * Add more about organizations opposing book censorship and maybe some pro-censorship!
 * Is there a connection to be drawn towards popular, generally influential books + likeliness to be banned?
 * Add more about organizations opposing book censorship and maybe some pro-censorship!
 * Is there a connection to be drawn towards popular, generally influential books + likeliness to be banned?

Tone:


 * Is the article neutral? Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
 * Seems biased toward anti-censorship given the structure of contents (examples of banned books, organizations opposing, voices of banned authors)
 * I would look into if there are groups banning specific books, or how exactly this fits into the First Amendment
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
 * see above.
 * see above.

Talk Page:


 * What kinds of conversations, if any, are going on behind the scenes about how to represent this topic?
 * look into "first banned book" and source
 * changing "voices of banned authors" into "resistance against banned book
 * this is interesting and could incorporate voices that aren't just authors
 * look into more well-known books in list of banned books
 * section: activism against censorship
 * add court cases about legality of censorship!
 * add statistics with some consistently censored books
 * How is the article rated? Is it a part of any WikiProjects?
 * Start-class, High-Importance in United States and Freedom of speech WikiProjects
 * How does the way Wikipedia discusses this topic differ from the way we've talked about it in class?
 * would probably be more overarching and include examples as they are relevant to points, not just lists of examples
 * would probably be more overarching and include examples as they are relevant to points, not just lists of examples

Miller v. California
Content:


 * Is everything in the article relevant to the article topic? Is there anything that distracted you?
 * seems fine
 * Is any information out of date? Is anything missing that could be added?
 * Maybe add more into effects of the decision and link to other pages
 * What else could be improved?
 * remove final section. This is already included earlier in the exact same phrasing
 * What else could be improved?
 * remove final section. This is already included earlier in the exact same phrasing

Tone:


 * Is the article neutral? Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
 * Pretty neutral, unclear what decision would be until reading that section.
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
 * No inclusion of state lawmaker viewpoint, but I'm not sure if that's very relevant
 * No inclusion of state lawmaker viewpoint, but I'm not sure if that's very relevant

Talk Page:


 * What kinds of conversations, if any, are going on behind the scenes about how to represent this topic?
 * no entry on subsequent court case, Pope v. Illinois!!!!!
 * restricts one of the standards!
 * How is the article rated? Is it a part of any WikiProjects?
 * of interest to 3 Projects
 * How does the way Wikipedia discusses this topic differ from the way we've talked about it in class?
 * Would definitely include subsequent case with restrictions!
 * How does the way Wikipedia discusses this topic differ from the way we've talked about it in class?
 * Would definitely include subsequent case with restrictions!

Stormfront (website)
Content:


 * Is everything in the article relevant to the article topic? Is there anything that distracted you?
 * accurate
 * Is any information out of date? Is anything missing that could be added?
 * Include more on early history!!!
 * Page is likely much more relevant right now, include more about present day activity
 * What else could be improved?
 * Probably could have more information about effects upon subsequent, similar pages
 * What else could be improved?
 * Probably could have more information about effects upon subsequent, similar pages

Tone:


 * Is the article neutral? Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
 * Neutral despite controversial topic?
 * Maybe edit first line...
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
 * Mostly viewpoints from founder of page, could include more expert opinions?
 * Mostly viewpoints from founder of page, could include more expert opinions?

Talk Page:


 * What kinds of conversations, if any, are going on behind the scenes about how to represent this topic?
 * Controversial page
 * Very heated arguments in talk page with people attacking one another
 * Argument over including it in the category "far right politics in the US"
 * Political arguments over "fake news" in page crashing
 * Someone accusing "liberal antifa narrative" of taking over Stormfront page...
 * Argument that page is written from the point of view of someone trying to convince people to stay off Stormfront, i.e. supporters don't see it as a hate page
 * Overall this is a very messy, argumentative talk section.
 * How is the article rated? Is it a part of any WikiProjects?
 * Taken off good article list for overall tone, mostly first sentence
 * How does the way Wikipedia discusses this topic differ from the way we've talked about it in class?
 * INTERESTING POINT: Wikipedia will present articles in the way that neutral reliable sources would, not as a complete neutral source to please everybody. Facts that would be relevant to neutral sources are also relevant to articles
 * How does the way Wikipedia discusses this topic differ from the way we've talked about it in class?
 * INTERESTING POINT: Wikipedia will present articles in the way that neutral reliable sources would, not as a complete neutral source to please everybody. Facts that would be relevant to neutral sources are also relevant to articles