User talk:Shalichan/cohendraft

Peer review
Hi, here is my peer review—overall your changes look good!

'''First, what does the article do well? Is there anything from your review that impressed you? Any turn of phrase that described the subject in a clear way?'''

The changes you made add a lot of valuable information to the article, particularly in summarizing the case in the lead and giving more background into the initial incident.

The article seems balanced and neutral, with the most of the emphasis on the Supreme court ruling but enough detail for the other sections.

'''What changes would you suggest the author apply to the article? Why would those changes be an improvement?'''

One question I had from my first read through was exactly how broad the ruling was. The mention of "displaying a mere four-letter word", could be interpreted to suggest a relatively narrow ruling (i.e. you can display the word "fuck" but not another expletive or other lightly offensive speech). This sentence would suggest a pretty narrow ruling, along with the similar wording in the sidebar in the "Holding" and the quote that is being removed.

But reading through the rest of the article, it seems that the court went through the existing exceptions the the 1st Amendment and decided that none of them applied (and implicitly decided not to carve out a new exception), which (to me at least) would suggest that the ruling could apply to other lightly offensive speech.

Maybe it would help to briefly mention in the lead how this ruling has been applied in future cases (assuming that is the case and fits with the article structure).

What's the most important thing the author could do to improve the article?

I think making the scope of the ruling clear and adding some discussion of impact (such as cases where this case was applied as precedent).

Weinshel (talk) 01:20, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

Peer Review 2
'''1. First, what does the article do well? Is there anything from your review that impressed you? Any turn of phrase that described the subject in a clear way?''' I think the new sections you've decided to add are really good additions to the article (such as impact of the ruling). More than that, I think the smaller pieces of information you've added in between existing sentences are also well chosen and still maintain neutrality.

'''2. What changes would you suggest the author apply to the article? Why would those changes be an improvement? ''' I really like the changes you've made to the court decision section and don't have any changes there. Instead I would add more about opposing views, like you did with Harry Blackmun. I think that this gives readers a better picture of the conflicting views regarding the ruling by showing reasons for contention. More generally, I think these changes would improve your article because it is in line with Wikipedia's general aims of presenting multiple viewpoints on a topic. You could even expand on the public's reaction to this case and to the subsequent ruling, if there is information about it.

'''3. What's the most important thing the author could do to improve the article? ''' I think that expanding the reactions and impact of the ruling will help focus your article more towards information control and make it clearer why this article is important to the public. This idea of impact is especially important for court rulings as they are cited in subsequent cases and therefore set a precedent for future legal action.

Erujhaider (talk) 19:14, 16 November 2018 (UTC)