User talk:Erujhaider/sandbox

Peer Review -Laila

 * Were you not able to find any data from before 1992? Surely there was censorship before then, unless maybe if you're just focusing on internet censorship
 * Good direct quote of the law section
 * I think there needs to be a little more background info before getting into censorship specifics. For example, when you talk about cyber bullying I was wondering what social medias even exist in SA. If its very high on the Freedom Index then I assume some sites are inaccessible.
 * perhaps a little too much quoting
 * Under the Jamal case study might be worth mentioning what the international reaction to this was since it supposedly gained international attention
 * "desire to work with other governments in the region to develop common censorship guidelines and restrictions." is super interesting, would want to hear more.

--Alaila (talk) 11:29, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

Peer Review -- Lydia
Your additions are very useful and relevant. The tone in the article is neutral while adding perspectives on the issue through anecdotes. There are times where I find information a bit redundant but for the most part, you did a great job on expanding issues and topics with new information. Here are my suggestions and review of each section:

Law and Operation: Your additions were great. I’m not sure whether your quote on the Basic Law of Governance is a new addition to the original or not, but if it is then it’s a bit redundant. However, if you’re replacing the original one with the new one, then I like how you shorten the quote to make it more concise. Your addition on the law of printing and publication is very useful since readers can get a closer look on the regulation of media especially since in the original article, the topic was briefly talked about in the first section. I also enjoyed your additions on the penalties because it informs readers about the ramifications of violating the press law.

What happened to Cyberbullying and the Internet section? Do you not think it's relevant? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shulydiasun (talk • contribs) 14:26, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

Press: I like your addition on the role of journalists in this predicament which is relevant and interesting. The information on the firing of the two editors and Mansour al Nogaidan is informative and I’m glad you were able to use what you learned in class. The information on the the focus on the content sexual nature in the original article is very interesting and I think it will be great if you can include in your article as well. However, if your article is just adding new information and not replacing it, then no need to add.

James Khashoggi section is interesting and informative. I do enjoy how it has its own separate section so the readers will a better understanding of issue through a specific anecdote.

Film and Television: your expansion on the topic of public cinemas is very useful. I also really liked how you updated the article with more recent information and your examples on some specific episodes of shows.

All of the information you’ve added are interesting and relevant. I think your additions suffice for the meantime but I would still like you to include some information from the original article that you may have eliminated. Overall, the flow of the article is very smooth and the citations were very well in place. I’m looking forward to reading it once it is published. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shulydiasun (talk • contribs) 14:24, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

Shalini's Peer Review
1.	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 think your additions to the “Law and operation”, “Press”, and “Film and Television” sections added a substantial amount of new information to the article and gave me a better understanding of censorship in Saudi Arabia. In particular, the original article contains long quotes in the “Law and operation” section rather than summarizing the law, so I think you do a good job expanding and explaining the content of Saudi censorship law. The content of the article has a neutral tone and I think coverage is quite balanced, although maybe you could include a section on critical responses to Saudi Arabia’s censorship laws.

Lastly, I think including the section on Jamal Khashoggi was very timely, and good job removing the line about banning advertisements of driving schools for women.

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

The phrase, “which does not permit independent media” in the lead section confused me, especially because you write that print media is privately owned. Some clarification on this might be good. I would also suggest adding a lot more hyperlinks throughout the article, because this will allow readers to easily look up anything mentioned in the article that they don’t understand.

The article is well-cited and includes a lot of reliable sources, but I would caution against citing news articles since they may be biased and could in turn make the article biased.

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

I think that overall the improvements to this article are great, but I would say the most important thing that could be improved is adding more links to other articles.

Also, this is small, but I noticed two typos that can be distracting:

1)	The paper, which pushed for reform in Saudi Arabia, had published information or more sensitive issues, specifically regarding the Riyadh compound bombings that occurred in May of 2003. 2)	Television and radio news, educational and entertainment 2008 after disgruntled callers on a live show

Shalichan (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 18:18, 16 November 2018 (UTC)