User talk:RebeccaLYU/sandbox

1. In the impact section, when discussing negatives responses towards the film, you can provide some examples on what forged information was criticized.

2. In the government reaction part, the first sentence is confusing because CCTV is not exactly the government. May be divide experts from the government and people from the media into two sentences. In the following context, different government sections and their hierarchy should be clearer.

3. When writing about the reasons why central government banned the film, you might want to be more specific about the negative impacts that triggered the decision.

4. In the social media and censorship section, the causal effect relationship between the first and second sentence needs to be clarified.

5. What potential action?

Yuehan wang (talk) 05:47, 29 November 2017 (UTC)Yuehan Wang

Peer Review
Things I like

1. Information about how the film was banned.

2. Critiques about the film.

3. Impact in many aspects.

Things could be improved

1. In government reactions section, CCTV people cannot represent government.

2. In social Media and Censorship section, the statement that the film was supported by government was doubtful.

3. In social Media and Censorship section, the logic and time series of the first 3 sentences are not clear.

4. It is a documentary, rather than film.

5. The first sentence in Public Opinion section is not the main point of the paragraph.

Shiqinglboston (talk) 17:07, 29 November 2017 (UTC)