These buttons along the bottom are a good manner of alternative navigation, directing readers toward what is most important.

The use of "incident" to describe your case urks me here. I am not 100% sure why. Perhaps it feels like downplaying and obfuscating?

I absolutely love this top banner. It is gorgeous, and the subtitle is a nice reference to the topic of the website. That may be my own bias toward purple, black, and grey, however.

You know, I never did actually find a bibliography or works cited. Tragic.

This works perfectly well for its purposes. I will say, it never occurred to me to link course blogs, for whatever reason. Well done!

I have no complaints this page, as it is perfectly functional. However, I will posit that Lauren and my site having pictures of our pets instead of ourselves was way cuter, so there!

That is certainly true, but tell me why. Making the claim without elaboration (or at least a supporting citation) makes it disconcerting.

The key word here is "challenges," not censorship in general. It is really important to at least make note of how books that were going to be objected to were definitely going to be objected to were unlikely to be purchased in the first place, or at least acknowledge the possibility.

Be careful of downplaying the significance and danger of the book having even been challenged and temporarily removed at all, just because Hopkins' visit is more exciting.

Incomprehensible screech.

This page being at least three times the length of the other primarily text ones is kind of weird and overwhelming.

This all looks pretty solid. Some pictures would be nice, though.

Each of these documents really need at least some degree of introduction and description.

Once again, an intro here would be appreciated. Maybe speak on how you got these documents and interviews?

I quite like this paragraph. It seems well-written.

I like the below clipping, but I also cannot read any of the text save the headline, which is rather an irritance.

Sigh... Citations...

'Tis a hopeless want Seeking to see reference Or one citation

-Jacob Rogers

Enjoy my pretty lacklustre haiku?

Examples?

Attempting to remove a book and failing is attempted censorship and a legitimate topic for this course, regardless...

Okay, the fact that this one leads to an actual page instead of just a blank with links is greatly confusing to me. At this point I would not have even clicked on the appropriate link here were I not reviewing your site, as I had just assumed it would be another nothing page.

You get my point about citations at this point, right? I feel kind of bad for annoying you with it constantly, to be honest.

All the graphs and images here are very nice and informative, as well as aesthetically appealing. I especially enjoy how you managed to have your graphs and charts use the same colour scheme as your website.

The big pages being inserted in do annoy me somewhat in that they make this page far longer than the others I have been on so far, but I suppose that is justified.

Maybe divide up this paragraph? It's a tad blocky.

This is a very good think to have linked to, though perhaps it would be worth making the value of clicking here even more obvious.

Aaaaaaaaah citations aaaaaaaaaaah. Okay, moving on.

Again, just a few sentences describing this section would be good. Though, thinking on it, the clickable navigation boxes also make navigation feasible on mobile devices. Well done!

So, are your citations all hiding on some page I have yet to find or something? I mean, you would still need to mark down when you were directly quoting or paraphrasing something, but still. I should probably stop going on about citations, but this is very much plagiarism without them.

I know what it is, but you're still going to want to explain what smut is. If your readers have to infer from your use of "pornographic material" later, that is not a good sign.

It would likely be worth including a sentence or two here about how the pre-censorship of content prevents later challenges.

My urge is to complain about this entire section for being too short and not particularly in depth, though I suppose too long a page is also a negative. The writing here simply seems incomplete. Why both claiming a history of the genre when it consists of three sentences?

You literally quoted one of our readings! Why is there no citation!?

Okay, how does this article have no citations other than the images? I find it difficult to believe nothing else was looked at.

Take care with your generalization here. You are focusing on an American case, so perhaps narrow your claims there. Modern France, for instance, censors violence in cinema rather heavily but has few qualms with sexuality.

It seems somewhat hypocritical for me of all people to comment on this, but I would advise caution in using language that increases the entry barrier to engaging with your content.l

A short introduction to this section, even just a couple of sentences, would be greatly appreciated. It does not need much, but having nothing seems problematic.