User talk:Prgopalan/editsandbox

Peer Review-- Ricardo Mestre

I think that the lead section did a really great job of outlining what the Bushranger genre attempted to do, a brief early history of how it came about, and the incentive for producers to develop this genre of film. I wish that there would have been a little more information explicitly stating what bushrangers are and a little bit of background on their significance in Australian society. I got over the course of the article that they were some sort of gangs that definitely held some degree of a negative connotation with the government, but I think that it would be more helpful to characterize the actions or crimes that they undertook at the beginning of the article. I think that context would provide the reader with great context to understand the subsequent actions by the government. Overall, I think that the lead section did a great job of not being repetitive to the rest of the article.

I think that all of the information is presented a very logical way in that it is chronological and gives the reader some degree of understanding of the development of censorship over time. In the next few sections, I like the discussion of some of the more objectionable content of the Bushranger films, because it gave me a better understanding of the rationale of the government in why they wanted to prevent these films from being broadcasted to the public. I also appreciate the quantitative figures provided as far as the potential profitability of the films, and then the punishment for people for going to see the films. Maybe some inflation-adjusted statistics here would be helpful just so that it is easier to tell exactly how large the audience was and make the punishment reflect the actual severity of the time. I think it would also be helpful to mention more of the objectionable content specific to each example movie that you mention as it will give the audience a better idea of the actual content of the examples and give an insight into the progression of the content in this genre of movies.

I liked the use of the quote in the last section as it provides some concrete rationale behind the decision to censor and gives the reader some insight into what the intent of the government was at the time. I also thought it was nice to have the perspective of the business owners to reflect the public grievance over the actions of the government.

The article was very well balanced and reflected a very neutral approach toward the subject. I did not feel like the author was trying to advance a certain perspective and I felt as though the different perspectives in the situation were presented adequately in order to ensure that the article is neutral. All of your sources are from high-quality sources, wither academic writing or highly reputable newspaper reports, which lends itself to the credibility of the article. You also did not focus excessively on any individual movie, and instead focused on many movies throughout the development of the censorship. I also thought that the sources where used very effectively throughout the article.

Overall, I would just say just try to focus on adding a little bit more information about the example movies that you bring up and perhaps add some insights on the public vs government response to each of the movies and then how this relationship developed over time to ultimately result in censorship. I think that would be a great way to show how the laws ended up where they did. But, of the content you have right now I would say that it all seems accurate and informative.

Great job!

--Rpmestre (talk) 18:02, 16 November 2018 (UTC)