User talk:Avivaw23/sandbox

Aviva Peer review: Stormfront (website)
Chloehyman (talk) 19:18, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
 * great use of sources, the Belew book looks particularly informative
 * though it is not clear which sections your notes will be incorporated into on the main page, I think all of the notes are neutral and relevant pieces of information that should be added to the main page article.
 * I like how the structure of the main page is chronological and also has a section for more content details. I do not think that it needs to be rearranged.

Peer Review: Miller v. California
Aviva's contribution to this page cannot be understated. While the original contained an aptly named section regarding the "Effects of the decision," the information lacked clarity and structure. Not only did Aviva restructure the section to emphasize the precedent set by the Supreme Court - the definition of obscenity - but also clarified the differences between the precedent and the effects of the precedent. For a Supreme Court case of this nature, this is an important distinction. Additionally, Aviva added many needed citations and made use of powerful primary sources that give this article a lot more validity. While the nature of an effect is subjective, Aviva managed to remain neutral across the board. My only recommendation would be to put more on the Talk page about the changes you've made. You only really mentioned deleting the redundant material for a different section, so it was a bit difficult to see exactly what you had done and why without comparing the old and new articles side-by-side. Overall, great work!Hcritchfieldjain (talk) 21:18, 16 November 2018 (UTC)