User talk:Hcritchfieldjain/sandbox2

The lead is pretty good-- gives a good overview of what most of the rest of the article is about, but I have two primary suggestions of how the lead could be improved. I would maybe include "iBooks, and App Store," when it says "such as the iTunes store" just to give a better sense of the main sections of the article from the outset. I am a little confused about the section at the bottom of the article about Censorship of Taiwan. This was not introduced in the lead, and so it came as a surprise at the end.

The section order makes sense except for the rather ambiguous "Censorship of Taiwan" section. This section of the article could be expanded on. It tells us THAT Apple is censoring the word "Taiwan" and their flag emoji when their language setting is set to Chinese, but for people who don't know why China doesn't acknowledge Taiwan, this is rather confusing. I'm almost wondering if a new section title could be used that talks about where Apple works to "support" or to "acknowledge" other government's censorship. Maybe there are other examples of this?

The article sections seem to be good lengths for the most part in relation to their importance to the article subject. Above I wrote about which section I thought could be expanded. Can't really think of viewpoints missing from this article, but I don't know much about this topic. The article is pretty neutral so I think it probably does represent almost all viewpoints. The article does not try to draw conclusions or try to convince the reader of anything. I don't think you could guess the position of the reviewer based on the article. Language is pretty neutral throughout. Article does not seem to say anything on behalf of unnamed group of people. Does not focus too much on either the positive or the negative.

There are a lot of sources for this page. Many of the sources seem to be from very reputable sources like the Telegraph or the Guardian. There are not a lot of statements attributed to one or two sources. The article covers a breath of examples and so it relies on a wide number of sources. The section, "Chaos Computer Club videos about security vulnerabilities" does not have enough sources attributed. Can't find the source about Youtube.