User:Naomissweeting/potentialtopics

Notes on Andrei Rublev


 * Article is generally good -- no irrelevant content, no obvious bias
 * However (before my edit) the censorship section is very short and doesn't cite sources or clearly explain the role of the Soviet state. Meanwhile, the "release" section deals with questions of censorship, so I think they should be combined and improved.
 * Citations are extensive overall (lots of scholarly articles in both Russian and English), but thin in censorship section. The one source under "censorship" is an interview with Tarkovsky, and it turns out this does not support the central claim of the paragraph -- that the film was censored because of concerns about animal cruelty. In fact, I could find no support for this claim when I did my own research. The "release" section refers to several sources, but not for the seemingly key point about the state censors' refusal to publish the film and why they did so.
 * The Talk page shows a copyright concern with an image being used and a dispute over the transliteration of the title. Also an interesting disagreement over whether a critic's assessment that the film shows "Christianity as an axiom of Russia’s historical identity" should go in the summary -- one user thinks this is biased. Nobody ever answered the user and the sentence remains. Editors are confused about the release dates.
 * Article was recently awarded "Good" status. It's in three projects: Film, Soviet Union / Film, and Russia / Performing Arts / History / Religion.

Notes on Guillaume-Chrétien de Lamoignon de Malesherbes


 * Article is pretty short and not very clearly written. There's a bizarre section about a speech made by Malesherbes' cousin which doesn't seem relevant. There are many confusing points, like how Malesherbes' father appointed him to his first post and what exactly happened with the Maupeou dispute and Malesherbes' banishment.
 * Clear pro-Malesherbes bias; weird phrases like "betook himself entirely to a happy country and domestic life" and "in spite of the fair excuse his old age and long retirement would have given him, he voluntarily left his asylum."
 * Barely mentions his role in censorship! "Memoires sur la Liberte de la Presse" do not appear at all. Minimal discussion of his thought and how he fit into the debates going on in France at the time.
 * Citations are extremely limited. What citations there are refer only to a few pages of the Grosclaude biography that all seem to be about his country seat! None of the important information about Malesherbes' political life is properly cited. Encyclopedia Britannica is used for a bizarre quote that romanticizes Malesherbes.
 * Talk page shows almost no discussion, except about a factual error in the Encyclopedia Britannica. Article is rated Start class and is part of two projects: France and Biography.

Notes on New York Society for the Suppression of Vice


 * Article is pretty short, but what there is is good. No obvious bias, helpful list of NYSSV actions. Missing a lot of detail about, e.g., how the organization presented itself to the public, political reaction to it, success in "pushing for" obscenity laws, etc. Also, it would be good to summarize that list into a narrative form describing tactics and accomplishments.
 * Neutral tone. Citations seem good. Mix of scholarly sources and news articles, which is appropriate for this topic.
 * Talk page shows almost no discussion. One person wants to hear more detail about the society's dissolution; another wants to hear about relationship to Oneida. Neither point has had any follow-up.
 * Article is rated Stub and is part of two projects: New York State and Organizations.
 * Unlike our discussion in class, this page doesn't use the word "censorship." Obviously this is a loaded word, but if there is any scholarly discussion on how the NYSSV fit into a broader picture of U.S. censorship that would be great to add.

Notes on Censorship in France


 * This article is overall OK. I don't think the organization is optimal; there is a short subsection devoted to twenty-first century history of censorship, but then the rest of the article is about contemporary censorship practices, which include some things that happened before the content of the twenty-first century history section (which is all about Wikipedia and a failed bill to ban visiting terrorist websites). From class, I know that the section on 18th century censorship could use a lot more detail, and I'm sure the other historical sections lack depth as well.
 * Tone seems mainly neutral, although the first sentence basically says censorship in France no longer exists; the rest of the article (and indeed, the end of the introduction) shows this to be false. Fairly thorough citations, although only one book is used for the history of censorship section. Most contemporary stuff is cited to news organizations, which is probably appropriate for the topic.
 * Talk page shows some very politicized debates about what counts as censorship (including over a law meant to enforce French as primary language). Somebody brings up that first sentence and says it is biased. Bizarre comments like "france just has same amount of freedom as china..france government has less enemies(aka holocaust deniers), whole chinese government as more enemies but regarding the freedom..france isn't anything better than communist china.."
 * Article rated C-Class. Part of three proejcts: France, Journalism, and Freedom of Speech.