User talk:Hannahgoss/sandbox

Peer Review: Censorship in Germany
Lead
 * First few sentences pretty vague
 * Lead only focuses on modern censorship (in present tense)
 * Could do a better job of summarizing all of article contents

Structure
 * Chronological order makes sense
 * Is there anything available before 1871?
 * Why are 1945 and 1990-present listed as 2 different time periods but in the same section?

Balance
 * Most information in modern section (but again, should break up into 2 sections)
 * All sections pretty short but this makes sense given the links to main articles about specific sections
 * Should have more information about first two sections because there are no separate pages for them, and more info about pre-1871
 * Agree with needing more information about modern censorship

Neutrality
 * Define "inappropriate material" in first historical section
 * Edit phrasing of "censorship in nazi Germany was extreme": compared to what? How so?

Sources
 * MANY unsourced statements about general trends/happenings throughout article, many "citation needed" labels
 * Look for more primary sources

Avivaw23 (talk) 22:43, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

Clearly the reviewer's comments are based off of the article itself and not my revised draft, which is located in my sandbox. In the sandbox itself, where I have been working, many of these issues have been addressed. Additionally, I have added countless citations, and a multitude of my sources are now primary sources by nature. Hannahgoss (talk) 22:00, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

Peer Review
Overall, Hannah's work on this article is quite good. Hannah focused primarily on fleshing out the content of the page, citing claims that lacked validity, bringing to light modern censorship on a page primarily focused on historical examples, and fixing any biases. To these ends, Hannah has so far been moderately successful. The article already had a strong structure; focusing on different time periods; but Hannah chose to restructure some of the individual sections to better explain the historical context, which is certainly an improvement. She has also added greatly to several sections that were clearly lacking in coverage and managed to maintain an objective and neutral tone to the article. Her sources are diverse and all seem to be reliable, however, I wonder if it is valid to use Michael Stout's Master's Theses and Doctoral Dissertations. Additionally, there are still quite a few claims in need of citation. Regardless, I'd say this is a sizable addition, and I can't wait to read the finalized article in its entirety. Hcritchfieldjain (talk) 20:34, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

Harry's notes are incredibly helpful - especially the note on the validity of one of the sources. Hannahgoss (talk) 22:01, 24 November 2018 (UTC)