User talk:Hcritchfieldjain

Welcome!
Hello, Hcritchfieldjain, and welcome to Wikipedia! My name is Ian and I work with the Wiki Education Foundation; I help support students who are editing as part of a class assignment.

I hope you enjoy editing here. If you haven't already done so, please check out the student training library, which introduces you to editing and Wikipedia's core principles. You may also want to check out the Teahouse, a community of Wikipedia editors dedicated to helping new users. Below are some resources to help you get started editing. If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to contact me on my talk page. Ian (Wiki Ed) (talk) 03:06, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

Harry's peer review - lead section is so much better than the original article - also you added links to a lot of really relevant pages which is great for the reader - you added a lot of citations which is really good - however, maybe diversify the types of sources that you are using. you cite a lot of great New York Times articles which is good, but maybe you should use a few different sources - maybe also explain why Apple has decided to censor material? That would really balance out your article - right now it kind of reads as a quasi exposé - I think that you do a really good of articulating the importance of the article! I had no idea that this was even a concept until reading this - the leading section does an especially good job of explaining how censorship affects every day people - rather than suggesting that it is an overarching concept that is never enforced to the average person. Rather, they can find it in their very own itunes store and IOS updates - the structure is well organized. It goes from the lead section, to the practical impact, to the specific impact country by country. this is helpful because each country has very different policies concerning the intersection of Apple and information - something I did not know before reading this! - Length is pretty uniform - especially in the censorship by country - No view points are left out! - The author does not have a clear agenda - not pushing one perspective over the other - No superlative language - author is not advancing one perspective - No claims - just pure facts - Every point that is factual and not a conclusion includes a citation - A few of the sources are of lower quality - especially in the Censorship by nation - China section — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hannahgoss (talk • contribs) 04:27, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

Harry's Peer Review
I think overall this was really good; the tone was neutral and did a good job of presenting straight facts. Maybe going forward just look to add more, higher quality citations! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hannahgoss (talk • contribs) 04:32, 16 November 2018 (UTC)