User talk:Echowisp/sandbox

Peer Review
Lead section: I rather like your lead section. The only thing I would change would be to (maybe?) add something about the early censorship information you're adding, beyond just the "many iterations".

Structure: I can't really think of a better way to organize the sections that what you seem to be proposing. (So long as the Early Censorship section goes before the post 1986 stuff.) I feel like your notable cases section should go within the Selected Cases section already on the page.

Balance: I feel like you might want to add to or at least clean up the Policy Shift section, as it seems lacking compared to your nice Early Censorship section.

Neutrality: The entire last sentence of the policy shift about suicide seems a little bit leading (and is missing any citations). Otherwise, I have no problems with tone in the article.

Sources: Your sources seem to be of high quality (or at least, I think they're better than mine). But you really need to cite them more frequently. You have no citations in your lead section. You also seem to cite your high quality sources only about once a paragraph in the other sections you're writing.

Overall, I thought your Early Censorship section was especially well done. Pepper in a few more citations for each sentence specifically and I think you'll be basically ready to go. The only other thing I would add is that some of the existing sections on the page also need your helping hand.

(Also, your link to the Film, Video, and Publications Act of 1993 is broken, both in your draft and in the original article.)

JosephLMarques (talk) 05:36, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

Peer review
Hi, here is my peer review—overall your changes look good!

'''First, what does the article do well? Is there anything from your review that impressed you? Any turn of phrase that described the subject in a clear way?'''

I like the way you reorganized this article chronologically and added a lot of content about the earlier legal frameworks (which is a pretty glaring absence in the existing article), and it makes sense how you split up the notable cases/controversies to fit in this chronology.

'''What changes would you suggest the author apply to the article? Why would those changes be an improvement?'''

With the lead section, I'd suggest incorporating the info you've added later in the article to explain why and how censorship in New Zealand arose before suggesting that it has changed recently (e.g. saying it arose in the late 19th century as a response to obscene literature, expanded and refined through the mid-20th century, and then applied more liberally).

It would be good to add in a few more sources, right now it looks like a lot of your additions rest on one source. Contemporaneous news sources might be a good addition.

What's the most important thing the author could do to improve the article?

I think refining the lead will help better position the rest of the content, which is quite good!

Weinshel (talk) 18:54, 16 November 2018 (UTC)