User talk:Chloehyman/sandbox

Peer Review: Office of Censorship (Naomi)
Naomissweeting (talk) 13:58, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Lead: adding the detail about jurisdiction is good, but this lead is still not very informative. If you added a few more sentences (or even paragraphs) explaining key points and significance, I think it would improve the article a lot. (Also, incidentally, the Philippines could be a link.)
 * Structure: the structure of the article as a whole makes sense. But the paragraph you've written to add to overview doesn't flow clearly. What does the separation of the different offices have to do with the voluntary nature of censorship?
 * Balance: this page doesn't have anything about criticism. Was there any? Your quote from the ACLU doesn't really explain how they felt about the censorship.
 * Neutrality: the pre-existing page seems a little skewed towards the government perspective, especially, for example, in the last paragraph of the overview. You could improve it by at least acknowledging the ideological content of Price's comments on censorship; even better, is there any serious scholarly work that takes a less pro-government stance?
 * Sources: you only really add one source, the book review from the CIA. This is potentially a very problematic source, because the CIA is not an unbiased or external observer. It would be much better if you could use the original book or another scholarly source instead of, or at the very least in addition to, the CIA source.
 * Other comments: who called the letter to Eleanor Roosevelt "very stern"? If it was just a historian, no need to quote; if it was her, you should say it was her.
 * This phrase is ungrammatical: "in an effort to avoid turning the Office into the British Official Secrets Act"

Peer Review: Glomar Response
Lead
 * "For example, in response to a request for police reports relating to a certain individual, the police agency may respond with the following: "We can neither confirm nor deny that our agency has any records matching your request." Such a response is invariably a true statement, regardless of whether the entity actually possesses the information requested." implies guilt/information available at the outset of the article. Maybe remove because the next sentence conveys the same information, with a source attached
 * "may outweigh claims to secrecy" this is leading.

Structure
 * There is only one section, about the origin of the term
 * Are there any examples to add to this article? Anything in public attention?

Balance
 * Again, there is only one section

Neutrality
 * See comment on intro
 * "The original text... seems to have been" Why is the original text not available? Remove "seems"
 * Can the quote be summarized?
 * The tweet is funny but is it necessary?

Sources
 * Add sources to any opinions or generalizations. Add sources to origin of term.

Avivaw23 (talk) 22:50, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

Peer Review by CensorshipStudent123!
I would flesh out the history section more. Specifically, I would look into how different cases/changes in political and social climate of the country may have influenced the coalition's mission overtime. I would also look to see cases of internal disagreement within the coalition's history. It would also be helpful to include some background on founding members/initial establishment. I would also consider diversifying the source material you are pulling from; what might an academic article say on this versus a NYT article around the time the coalition was published? The language in the lead section also could be cleaned up.

Chloe's Peer Review
- Good improvements to the lead section. I think this is the most important part of any article, and yours does a good job of presenting the topic in an unbiased, purely factual light. - I think the live article's overview section is far too long. I am not sure if you were planning on improving that, but if you are I think that would be good. Such a long section makes me want to stop reading immediately because it is poorly organized and overwhelming. - This article desperately needed more / new citations. Under the section "The Code of Wartime Practices", all of the subsections are made up of information from the same source. You did an excellent job of improving these subsections AND adding additional sources. This is perhaps the best improvement you have made. Not only is the information helpful to round out the sections, but also the new sources makes it a much more reliable article - Side note: also your sandbox is very well organized. I like that you have left space for "potential sources" because more sources are always good. - I think the section "censorship failures" could use its own intro - almost like a mini-lead. Like when do censorship failures occur? How often do we see them? - Maybe just delete the Sweeney source from the "further reading" section. They used this source so many times in the article itself its like I already read the source in its entirety. - Good job! This topic is fascinating and you've made it clear that it is of value Hannahgoss (talk) 18:32, 16 November 2018 (UTC)