User talk:Afgmcdonald/dragonflysandbox

Peer Review
Lead section: I know your edits didn't focus on this, but would it be possible to expand a bit on the article's existing lead sentence and make it into more of a true lead? What you add on its precedents is great, and just something like "It is not designed to notify searchers when the information they want has been censored, unlike its predecessor, Google.cn" could serve to add more context to the lead and emphasize the shift demonstrated by Dragonfly. You added a lot of really important info, and this deserves to be reflected in the lead! Organization: Overall, the order and flow of your sections is good. It might make more sense from a chronological point of view if "historical background/precedent" were before the "development" section, though. I would also suggest perhaps making the last paragraph of the "historical background" section into its own section--it's more of Google's incentives for pursuing a new search engine in China, and doesn't really fit under the same heading as the previous paragraphs. It could benefit from its own section, maybe "Risks and Rewards for Google" or "Incentives and Risks for Google." Other than that, I think everything is well-organized. Balance: You do a good job in your additions of balancing all viewpoints surrounding the creation of Dragonfly. Perhaps the "support" section could be a bit longer and cite more examples here? Though if there isn't more support, the length reflects the popularity/prevalence of that viewpoint. Your additions are all on topic, and the addition of the historical background section really contextualizes everything. Neutrality: Your additions tend to be neutral; the one thing I can think of is the length and depth of the "critical response" section vs. that of the "support" section. Is the criticism this overwhelming? You cite some opinion articles here (i.e. the open letter). Might still be good to find more things supporting the project, but if the critics really are that much more prevalent then this length difference can demonstrate that. You might also combine "critical response" and support into one section"--just "response"? Then "support" won't look so unbalanced just from a visual POV in comparison. It might also flow better this way. But finding more viewpoints could also be the way to go. Sources: Your sources look good. There are a lot of news articles, but in general they're all about actual statements from executives and experts regarding Dragonfly. There are some more opinion pieces, like the open letter; these could potentially be seen as a biased source, but if they come from credible sources it should be fine. You just may want to counterbalance with some opposing opinions and avoid too much of a single POV. You should possibly cite more statements, even if it means using the same source several sentences in a row, in order to really appease Wikipedia. This will make it more clear where each individual statement came from, as opposed to suggesting that a cluster of statements all came from the same source that follows them all. Do this in your "historical background" section! You have a lot of great info, just make it extremely clear where it all came from. Overall, you add a lot of really great info that the article was sorely lacking. The changes I'd make would be to a.) Expand the lead to include mentions of your additions and contextualize it beyond the current 1 sentence; b.) Maybe move "historical background/precedent" to be before "development" in order to preserve a more chronological flow; c.) Maybe find more on the "support" section, as "critical response" is so thoroughly plotted out, or even combine these into one "response" section (you could make "critical" and "support" subheadings within it); d.) Cite more individual sentences to look as credible as possible.

Kkukucka (talk) 04:37, 12 December 2018 (UTC)