See my email for the edits.
Overall, I thought that your drafts did an excellent job of staying objective. On the first draft, I changed come wording around to make your argument easier to follow, but no major changes. I included in the document that you it may benefit the article to include more of a description of the anti-censorship stance's arguments against Bolat's complaint and the superintendent's decision. The second draft I thought was very fact driven for obvious reasons, so there is not much that needs changing. In the coming days you may want to assemble the different pieces of info into one organized paragraph. This is especially true because you will be creating an entirely new section regarding "the movie vs. the novel".
Jtc79 (talk) 15:32, 21 November 2016 (UTC) Joe Carney Jtc79 (talk) 15:32, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
Overall, I really like the factual method in which you present each finding. The section on the specific case delves into great detail without any bias. I think just a little bit more evidence on either side both pro and anti censorship could help strengthen the article and show the magnitude of these decisions without opening any biases. In the second section, the only real thing I have to say is to make it flow a little better. Even though you do a good job presenting the facts, try and make it flow without adding bias. With that being said, you should probably get rid of the word, "notable" in your first couple of sentences. You say there are some, "notable" differences between movie and book, maybe just say differences. Also, maybe this section is a chart? Are there any other differences?
Amb401 (talk) 15:32, 28 November 2016 (UTC)amb401Amb401 (talk) 15:32, 28 November 2016 (UTC)