User talk:Weinshel/Internet censorship circumvention/

Ben's peer review
Hi, I was hoping to peer review your article. I will add comments as the week progresses.

Notes-

Lead In Section- in to the methods section was great. Sets up the rest of the material really well as well as giving the section a good structure.

Structure- Structure is good for the most part, Traffic obfuscation has the least content and source material. Obviously you know the topic better than I do but if there's no more information to balance this section with rest, I would at least add a source at the end of the last sentence. The examples section is a fantastic add to the page and allows readers with less background knowledge greater context into the topic.

Balanced Content/Reliable Sources- From the viewpoint of an unexperienced reader, the content appears very balanced. Well sourced outside of the one section mentioned above. Sources are of a high quality, books, academic article or newspaper articles.

Overall Impression- Good work Ben. The other additions you have mentioned in your blurb seem like they are going to build on your already great work! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ianbohn761 (talk • contribs) 22:56, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

Peer Review
So far this looks pretty good! A few notes:

- You might want to link to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Domain_Name_System#Address_resolution_mechanism when you mention DNS Resolution. I think it may help non-technical people understand whats going on.

- I realize that you're probably drawing on your own knowledge when talking about the blocking of IP addresses (and you're right) but you'll probably need to find a source on this to back it up, else it could err on being new research. Perhaps theres a paper floating around that has dug into this?

- It might be good to organize your new section chronologically.

- You reference an "internet measuring firm". Is it possible to find the actual firm that gave this measurement?

- Your Adoptiong Of Circumvention Tools section has some pretty good stuff although there might be a way to make it flow a little better? At the moment, I think you have paragraphs that talk about specific events and their consequence, paragraphs that talk about the circumstances/kinds of people that lead to high adoptions of circumvention tools. These differing points may benefit from being separated into different sections.

Echowisp (talk) 06:16, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

Shalini's Peer Review
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 read through the original article, and I think your edits have made the methods sections significantly more easy to understand. I also really like the way that you’ve restructured the section to combine some sub-sections that only have a one sentence description. It makes the article a lot less overwhelming and distracting. I think the original article had places where you could clearly see the author’s opinion, and you do a good job of rewording these parts so that they are neutral. Also, the adoption section is a good addition.

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

The article is well-cited, but there are a few sources that I’m skeptical of. Particularly in the adoption section, you reference quite a few news articles which could definitely be biased. I would re-consider using these sources so that you can maintain the neutrality of your article. However, you do include 17 new sources in your edits, so nice job.

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

Like I stated above, I think the most important thing you can do to improve the article is verify the neutrality and reliability of the sources that you’re using. I know it might be difficult to find non-news articles talking about adoption of circumvention tools in different countries, but it might be better to exclude this section altogether if you can’t find reliable sources. Also, you could probably include pictures or screenshots of some of the examples that you mention!

Also, this is really small, but I noticed two typos:

1)	In 2009 this led the government of China to ban all but a special Chinese versions of the browser 2)	Users often made on-the-spot decisions on tools to use based of of limited or unreliable information, and had a variety of perceived threats, some more abstract and others more concrete based on personal experiences. Shalichan (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 17:14, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

Responses to feedback
Thanks all for the feedback!

Some comments on the points mentioned:


 * In the methods section, there were some parts that were unsourced in the original article, but I will add sources for those claims.


 * In the adoption section, I'm adding some additional sources to broaden the perspective. Reading through my draft again I see a few parts where I probably inject more opinion/synthesis than I should, so I'll also revise it to be more neutral.


 * Thanks for the comments on organization!

Weinshel (talk) 07:31, 9 December 2018 (UTC)