User talk:FangzhuLu/sandbox article three

Structure
The original article has a lead that is way too long and it does not really reflect on the sub-sections of the article. The content of the lead (maybe except the first paragraph or so) fits more as a separate section. If "Hong Kong" is a separate section, it would make sense to have a section on "mainland China", and some content from the lead actually fits better under "mainland china" if the article is structured this way. In addition, the original article is missing information on the history and development on book censorship since it has a really long history that could be traced back at least to Qin dynasty. So good job on adding these two sections in your draft! However, I'm wondering what kind of information should be included in the "history" section (i.e Are there more information about banned books happened between the Burning of books and burying of scholars, and Qing dynasty also count toward the history of book censorship? Which criteria was applied to banned books in imperial China?).

Content
The tone of the article seems to be neutral in general; however, information on how people counter-act those strict censorship might worth looking into. The "Hong Kong" section in the original article seems to be too absolute, so good job on correcting that in your draft! However, phrases like "but only on the surface" might seems to be making an argument of some sort. It might be better to phrase that sentence to a declarative statement of a fact.

While the links to the sources in the original article works, and most of the sources seem to be reliable and supporting the claim, there's a big chunk of content in the lead that has no citation at all. It would be great if some sources could be added to support the information there. Other than that, many sources cited in your draft are news articles. Maybe some scholar/academic sources are also worth looking at. Especially since most of these news articles are westerns news, it's important to note their potential bias against China. I understand that articles on this topic is most likely to be forbidden in China; hence, some work by Chinese scholars but published in western education institutions or publisher might be a good thing to look at. --YilinW722 (talk) 06:58, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

Hi Yilin, thank you so much for peer reviewing my article. Those suggestions are very helpful and I will edit and improve the article according to your suggestions soon! FangzhuLu (talk) 01:41, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

Summary of revisions
1. I proofread the article and added more reliable sources. Since there are not many academic articles talking about book censorship in China, especially those English one, I've already done what I can find online and added those sources in the article. 2.Regarding the history section, I moved the history forward chronologically. 3. The article is restrucuted according to Yinlin's suggestion. 4. Some sentences are rewritten according to Yilin's suggestion "in a declarative statement of a fact".5. More related information was added in the article.FangzhuLu (talk) 21:22, 8 December 2018 (UTC)