User talk:Lilyzzf/sandbox article two

Peer Review
Dear Lily,

Again really interesting topic that you’ve selected. I think you’re on really good track. I have a few comments below.

Lead
Overall, I think you’ve definitely improved the lead. However, I got tripped up on one sentence: “It is the sanctioning of speech by spokespersons, employees, and business associates towards the speaker by threat of monetary loss, employment loss, or loss of access to the marketplace.” I don’t know if “towards” is the right preposition. You could potentially rephrase it as: “It is when a spokesperson, employer, or business associate sanctions a speaker’s speech by threat of monetary loss, employment loss, or loss of access to the marketplace.”

Lily's update: fixed

Structure
For your “E-commerce and Technology (NEW)” section, it could use a topic sentence, just giving the reader a general overview of what exactly happens and then you can go into your example.

Lily's update: fixed

I like your new header of Art and Music. Also, just in general I think the edits and restructuring you did from the original article was really smart and the note you left about moving the Internet section would work well.

Neutrality/Content
Overall, I found the sections that you have edited to be neutral, though I do have some comments about specific parts of your edits that have to do with neutrality/relevance:

I think that your Macmillan section is a bit confusing as to why it is censorship. Right now, it feels like it is more of an economic disagreement rather than a “sanctioning of speech.” Because it isn’t that Amazon did not like the content of the books, but they did not like Macmillan asking to make more money off these books.

''Lily's update: It is censorship because Amazon could have just blocked the e-books if it merely disagreed with the price increase. It had no reason to ban Macmillan's other books, including physical books, too. I wouldn't want to explicitly say that because I think that counts as my own analysis and thus an opinion, so I would leave it to the readers.''

In addition, I think you could better explain why Amazon taking off copies of 1984 was censorship. I was looking at the article and at least to me, it seemed like they were trying to remove unauthorized versions of the book that violated copyright law and while it upset customers (I would say understandably in my own opinion) who had bought the book, at the moment, I’m not quite convinced that Orwell was being censored?

''Lily's update: Actually, I think you are right and it doesn't count as censorship of Orwell's books, so I deleted that section. Thank you for pointing this out! I then added two other paragraphs on Amazon's other censorship practices.''

I thought your Google section was very interesting and you organize the information really well.

Other
I was a bit confused about the sentence, “Telegram, a messenger service in Russia with 15 million users, was banned…” Who was banning it?

''Lily's update: A Moscow court was. Fixed it.'' Lilyzzf (talk) 03:55, 18 November 2018 (UTC) Lily

Schoe043 (talk) 06:33, 16 November 2018 (UTC)