User talk:Jm3038/sandbox

For more minor edits:

https://docs.google.com/a/georgetown.edu/document/d/1u6_CDaZjBUwFzHqs4SsxYlhGz4x-mW_VWfJkzKHs-lE/edit?usp=sharing

Overall, this was very well-written. You an excellent job of finding a diverse set of sources that gave both sides of the story, especially for the two censorship cases. The research was also used well, and you did a very good job of writing a clear, informative article. I had a few small edits, but I think the page is mostly ready to go. The only major thing that I would recommend is using more signal phrases when discussing the theme of white beauty standards. While you do a good job citing everything, and it's definitely clear where these ideas come from, I think it should be very clear that you don't have any opinions on this issue. Right now it seems a little bit like you support the views that you found about themes in this book. I would make it a little less personal by constantly saying "this person claims that...", or "she argues..." and so on. Other than that, great work!

Jrr108 (talk) 18:44, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Minor Edits: https://docs.google.com/a/georgetown.edu/document/d/1X_9XYx5cFIWKwBFuHxPNILntaX9iONaQDMKae2sxNmc/edit?usp=sharing

Your controversy section is well-written and extensive, with only some really minor grammatical edits to be made to it. As we talked about, we can work on breaking up your analysis section to fit neatly within the themes. Other than that, it looks good! Jmg370 (talk) 20:46, 29 November 2016 (UTC)