User:JosephLMarques/sandbox

DRAFTS
User:JosephLMarques/Internet censorship in New Zealand

National Vigilance Association
The article is basically non-existent. There's a direct quote with no citation. The only other claim has two sources.

Regarding source availability, I can find a few sources simply by doing a cursory search on the school library site.

There is plenty of room for expansion on the topic. History of the organization, the ultimate fate of it, their goals, etc.

There is nothing at all on the talk page.

Postal censorship
The tone of the article seems fine.

That said, there are about half the total paragraphs (including the opening text) without a single citation. The things that are cited seem to be quite well cited, with good, reliable sources.

Aside from adding citations, I would think the best things to add would be the methods and consequences of postal censorship.

The only discussion on the talk page seems to be some people modifying the external links.

Media blackout
The media blackout page has some organizational issues. The only section is examples. And in the examples section, it seems to be a grab bag of (primarily US) examples without regard to notability or context.

There is also fewer than needed sources and what looks like a large amount of copy-pasting plagiarism (particularly the large paragraph about the Washington Post in quotation marks) and all around poor writing.

The neutrality of the article seems fine, even if it does draw too much from American examples.

On the talk page there is some discussion about the difficulty of finding sources as there aren't press articles about something, otherwise it wouldn't be a particularly effective media blackout. The most consistent discussion contributor seems to be LaughingVulcan.

Internet censorship in New Zealand
First, the talk page of this article is entirely empty, save for one person asking about governments editing Wikipedia pages.

For the actual content of the article itself, the only sources cited are in the history section of the article. The rest of the article is uncited entirely. Also, there is a template message at the top, indicating that the existing sources may not be reliable.

As for the tone of the article, I feel that the use of the phrase "secret list of banned sites" may be a bit pejorative. Otherwise, the tone seems pretty much fine.

As for additional content I'd like to see: I suspect that there may be more controversy and discussion about the filtering system than is currently mentioned in the article.

Article Evaluation (All Star (song))
The first thing I noticed that needs updating is that the video has received over 170 million views on YouTube as of July 2018. But the source for that is from April 2018. Also, that's out of date, as it's now over 186 million views.

As for things that are missing: If there is any information from the artists about the concepts behind the song (other than "exploring several layers of meaning"), that should be included.

There is no source listed for the first overview of the article.

Also, I feel that the in popular culture section needs some work. I feel some more context needs to be added for its resurgence in popular culture. Also, the bit about John Oliver seems pointless.

The entire synopsis of the music video has no source at all. At the very least, they could link to the video as a source, but that might might not be considered a viable usage for this.

On tone however, the article seems totally fine. It's not leaning towards anything in particular. It's a pretty dry list of facts about the song, aside from the in pop culture section I talked about before.

The MusicNotes source doesn't support the the claim that the song is 104 BPM, it lists 100 BPM.

Also, I can't find anything in the 2017 interview that seems to support the claim about wanting to explore "the social battle cry, the sports anthem, the fanbase affirmation, the poetic lyricism, the sweeping melody, the inclusion, the artistic music videos, and more".

Source twelve seems largely relevance to its claim. It's about the the movie rat race and it's a news article that mentions the movie in passing. Also the source for the musical is its own website. Which is not an allowed source. Not only that, but it doesn't actually say much about the song.

As for the talk page, there is a lengthy argument about the in pop culture section. That seems to be the only discussion on the page in the last year.

It is part of the WikiProject Songs. But I also found it through the Internet Culture wiki project, under the internet memes category.

It's rating is "Start-Class".