User talk:Tm670/sandbox

Peer Review by Relaxbear4649
Overall, I think you did a great job of covering the different aspects of source protection and protecting the privacy of journalists. Most of your statements are clearly backed up by some source so it is easy to look back at the works cited to see what sources you’ve used. I would suggest adding hyperlinks to some of the terms mentioned in the article so that people who are unfamiliar with the term can be directed towards the linked page. Also, the organization and flow of the article made sense to someone who has no prior knowledge of source protection. Sub-sections in the “Technology” section might be helpful for the readers if you are interested in mentioning multiple technologies that help protect the privacy of journalists. Continue the good work! Here are some words that could use hyperlinks:
 * 1) Branzburg v. Hayes
 * 2) First and Fourth Amendments
 * 3) Doctor-patient confidentiality
 * 4) Lawyer-client confidentiality
 * 5) Edward Snowden
 * 6) Freedom of Information Act
 * 7) Phishing

--Relaxbear4649 (talk) 03:00, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

Peer Review by Edits4Change
Great Job on this piece! I learned a lot about journalism and the rights that reporters have. You have a very nice structure and did a great job having a uniform size for each section. A few small changes I would recommend are that some places have slight hints of bias such as the line, "The 1971 case Branzburg v. Hayes largely struck down the idea of "reporter's privilege," which is an informal practice that protects communications between journalists and their sources." I would recommend getting rid of the word “struck down” which shows bias against this act based on the connotation of the word. One more recommendation is to watch out on the for wordiness, such as the line, "However, the case did set precedent and further formed its existence in common law." You can get rid of "did" and make the sentence "However, the case set precedent and is common law." I would also recommend changing the line, "Technological developments such as encrypted messaging and emails continue to be made as a part of better news practices that protect a journalist's and source's privacy." The section with "continue to be made as a part of" seems to be using a lot of words and can be made much on concise. Overall, your piece was great and I really learn a lot from this reading. Edits4change (talk) 10:58, 22 March 2019 (UTC)