User talk:Alaila/New sandbox

Ann's Peer Review of Laila's Contribution to "Internet Censorship in Morocco"

1. Lead: N/A since you are not editing the lead section of "Internet Censorship in Morocco"

2. Clear Structure: The overall structure of your section is quite clear: it makes sense to break the topic down into time periods so that the reader can understand how Moroccan censorship policies evolved over the course of the Arab Spring. I do think you could make your sub-sections a bit more organized, though. I noticed that the first sentences of your sub-sections describe individual events or themes, rather than give overviews of what will be covered in that sub-section. I would revise them to make them more topic-sentence like so that the reader can better follow your logic. Also, in the 2011-2012 section, you jump abruptly from talking about internet censorship policies to talking about the Moroccan constitution. I think you need to either make the connection between those topics more explicit or consider adding a sub-section where you talk specifically about the legislation regarding censorship in Morocco and the degree to which that legislation has been abided by.

3. Balance: You haven't finished your second and third sub-sections yet, so I can't evaluate whether or not each time period is discussed with equal emphasis. I think the length of your first sub-section is very reasonable, though, so you'll probably easily be able to produce two more sub-sections of that length. In terms of the balance of your sources/the viewpoints you represent, things seem somewhat skewed toward the side of the Arab Spring protestors. You include a quotation from someone who is critical of the government and its policies, but don't counter it with a quotation from a government leader who supports those policies. I would try to see if there is one such quote you could add.

4. Neutral Content: The sentence "The Moroccan constitution vows to protect the rights of free expression, but its spectrum is left vague in order to manipulate based on circumstance" seems somewhat accusatory-- perhaps because of the harsh connotation of the word "accusatory." It's also not accompanied by a citation, which makes it veer into the territory of non-neutral. You also state: "In several interviews, moroccan citizens claim that the constitution is not a reality," which might be seen as making a claim on behalf of unnamed people. I think you can resolve that problem by explicitly stating the source/nature of those interviews in the sentence.

5. Reliable Sources: Overall, your sources seem very strong and are well-distributed throughout your writing-- it's not the case that a few sources are used to support huge chunks of text. I would maybe try to add a few more academic sources, like journals. Also, like I mentioned above, you might try to find at least one pro-government sources so that you can add some information (possibly a quotation) about the government's response to criticism of its censoring policies.

Overall, great work! Good luck finishing the rest of your writing and making final edits! --Afgmcdonald (talk) 05:45, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

Response: 2. I've added a lot more to this section so i think it probably flows better now. I went from giving general background at the start, to how governmental institutions and laws have changed as media use has changed, then how the government handles free speech by using these institutions to target journalists, and finally how the judiciary system plays are role in allowing for the persecution and continued surveillance of such people.

3. The first section is definitely the main focus because it was the height of revolutionary activity so I wanted that to be my main focus. Most sources that I found were also much more focused on this as well because the revolution lost traction at the second attempt, also (as I stated) because the gov was more prepared to suppress the media. I will try to find some positive quotes on the gov, that would definitely help with neutrality.

4. I just switched around where I had the citations because sometimes there would be 2 sentences in a row where i cited the second one instead so it made it seem that way. The part about the constitution not being a reality was something specific from my source, not my opinion, but the ones of the interviewers so i hope changing around the citation made that more clear. And also the part about the constitution being left vague definitely sounded non-neutral at the end so I deleted that part, but I think the fact that it is vague is just a fact and needs to remain there, but that's also why I cited a line in the constitution so readers could understand what that looked like.

5. Cant remember if I had this before or after you read this, but I do have a bunch of journals, primary research, and scholarly articles as well as mass media outlets so I think my sources are pretty diverse. Thanks for the feedback! Alaila (talk) 04:22, 12 December 2018 (UTC)