User talk:Afgmcdonald/sandbox

The lead is pretty good, however I would give maybe a sentence explaining why there was such heavy censorship in the past. Without this context in the lead it's hard to have a good base understanding when reading the rest of the article. I do understand the importance of the topic still but I think this addition will help as well. There is a history section in the article, although it does need expansion, that would be good to expand a little more in the lead as well. I was going to say that "the future of censorship" section is not represented in the lead. However, this section is dated and only talks about 2008. This section is also a little confusing because I'm not sure how someone would write a censorship of the future section... this seems like it would be written off of more biased predictive sources.

The section order is done really well. I do think that the majority of the sections are propitiate to the article's subject. However, I want to stress that the history section needs to be expanded more, as well as the "post-democratisation" section. These give the most background and so are essential to this article being good and complete. I also feel like expanding the history section will also help give more perspectives. Right now it seems like it swings a tad more to the pro Taiwan side without giving adequate information about the Chinese side. However, although there are a few places where the wording might push a certain viewpoint, overall the article is written pretty neutrally.

I could probably guess the position of the writer of the article from what I said above. One of the words that seemed not so neutral was when the writer talks about material that has come up after a time of a lot of censorship, and says that that new material is "lively." Not sure this word adds much other than bias. I don't think that this article speaks on behalf of unnamed groups of people. I don't think this artical focuses too much on either the positive or the negatives which is good.

There needs to be a lot more sources for this article. This article is pretty substantial and there are still not nearly enough sources to account for the amount of material covered. There are only 7 sources in all for a really long article; there is too much information being attributed to these sources. There are whole sections that do not even cite a source.