Video Talk:Post-mortem privacy
Peer Review by Obtusesquare
In the lead section, there is a tiny grammar issue in the first sentence: you used plural "themselves" and "they" with singular "person" You should add links to important terms, such as Common Law, but I would include the full name of it first (Federal Policy for Protection of Human Subjects). I also think you should expand a bit about how it is controversial (even though it is pretty obvious, but it is helpful to write it clearly for the audience).
For the federal law section, perhaps you could include some real examples? Unsure if you have allocated space for real cases later in your article. For your state law section, you should include some examples about how legislation varies from state to state. I think importantly, court cases would be interesting to include in your article overall, although I'm not sure how many exist. But it adds real life relevance and how legislative thought has been carried out/what precedents have been set.
The Digital Assets section is a bit dense in acronyms, so it tends to get confusing to read. Perhaps split up each new policy into a new paragraph and expand a bit about why they were created, what jurisdiction do they have, and how they are applied/enforced.
I think the future directions Celebrity section is really interesting, as they nearly have no privacy in public, and their privacy in private can be deeply compromised by the career they lead. I'm excited to see where this article goes!
(also, don't forget about HeLa cells, which are pretty much ubiquitous in the bioscience world! Henrietta Lacks is a prime example of how her privacy rights were completely disregarded while she was living and after her death, and how healthcare/research continue to benefit from that violation while her family has received nothing)
Obtusesquare (talk) 20:59, 3 November 2017 (UTC)
Maps Talk:Post-mortem privacy
Peer Review Qewel
I believe for the lead section there isn't any need to have a heading. Based on the other articles I've seen, just typing out the first paragraph and then having headings for the subsections is the standard.
The article is looking great so far! Under "State Law," I'm wondering if there are any examples you could note in the section and provide sources for. In looking at the section you have in progress, "Continuing work," a link to the article regarding "right to publicity" would be helpful. The last sentence in your section "Medical Confidentiality" doesn't appear to be cited.
Good luck on the rest of your article!
Qewel (talk) 21:36, 3 November 2017 (UTC)
Peer Review Qewel 2
So far, so good! The article seems so close to being ready to be moved onto the mainspace. I have just a couple of small suggestions.
The second and last sentences of the article may need some citations. I believe you cite other statements that are similar and come up later in the article, but you may want to consider citing here since this is the first instance of this information coming up.
For the "State law" section, I'm excited to see how you will expand it! I suppose one suggestion I can make is naming subsections of this section after the states' whose laws are most relevant to the topic of post-mortem privacy, and perhaps you can also describe the certain state laws that go under them.
Both sections titled "Relevant Court Cases" will benefit from more examples if you are able to find any!
The "Digital Assets" section has numerous acts that you describe, and it may be beneficial to the article if you are able to link to other Wikipedia pages dedicated to each of the acts you mention.
The "Celebrity Images and Persona" section can be expanded with more examples of celebrities who have encountered this issue in the past.
Really good job!
Qewel (talk) 00:57, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
Xkwhvzde Peer Review
I think your lead paragraph is really well written and gets straight to the point. I think the way you have divided your sections within the law heading makes it easier for the reader to understand the differences between federal and state. I think you could also benefit if you include a local section. I also think specifying that the information on post-mortem privacy is within the United States is helpful. I think expanding the information on the court case you have included involving Jesse James would help the reader understand who he was. Again, when writing in the sections where you include specific laws, I think it would be helpful to include that it pertains to the United States. In your Medical Confidentiality section, I think adding a citation to the end of the second paragraph would make this example much stronger. The Digital Assets section is well developed and has a lot of information that is accessible to understand. Perhaps also including an example of how Facebook treats death would help your article further. Your article is coming along really well. I'm looking forward to reading how you expand your sections. Xkwhvzde (talk) 06:58, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
Peer Review by Obtusesquare
-If you're only focusing on postmortem policy in the US, maybe include a sentence/phrase stating that in your lead paragraph (more explicitly than just "states"). Although, for the celebrity section, that probably has international relevance + HeLa cells are universal in the world. -When you are developing the State Laws section, are you only highlighting those with significant postmortem privacy legislation? It seems like a very difficult area to cover, so you can even note that the information that exists is very hard to find which has public implications -Specific Areas of Concern section looks really good and well-developed!!! Really clear and easy to follow structure! For the Henrietta Lacks, you can also talk about how the privacy rights of her family was violated as well! Since they probably share hereditary info with Henrietta that were exposed to the public. You should also look into the Tuskegee trials, psych research experiments (especially before HIPAA was a thing, there was a lot of violations!!) -Explain a little more about what FOIA covers - Overall, really great job! The page is developing super well and I'm excited to read more :)
Obtusesquare (talk) 18:48, 17 November 2017 (UTC)
Peer Review by Xkwhvzde
You have developed this article so much this week! In your lead paragraph, I think mentioning the United States would be helpful for development in the future. Your "Areas of Concern" section is looking really developed. In your Emmett Till section, be wary of using phrases that might sway the reader to believe you have certain opinions. In your section of "Relevant Court Cases," there is a small typo-- acknowledge should replace acknowledging. In your law section, I was curious to know which states acknowledge post-mortem privacy and which don't. I think expanding to show the states contrasting each other would be great! Your law section is coming together, adding relevant court cases would be best fit into how they influence state or federal legislation. If some court cases did influence state/federal laws, which ones were they? Just a small suggestion. Overall, I am looking forward to see your sections expand! Xkwhvzde (talk) 20:33, 17 November 2017 (UTC)
Peer Review by Obtusesquare
Really great progress on your article this week! A lot of the wording and phrasing is much clearer, and the sections are organized very well. For the U.S. law section, I know you've had a bit of trouble finding specific state laws, but it could also be useful to generally include how they differ, or what the general view on post-mortem privacy legislation there is between conservative vs liberal states. It could also be interesting to look for vocal politicians/legislators who have been invested in post-mortem privacy cases and writing some important laws surrounding it (or if there's any at all!). The subsection titles of "The Case of Emmett Till" and "Relevant Court Cases" is a bit awkward, just because there's that duplication of the word "Case" used in different contexts - but that is a simple stylistic choice and it is up to you if you'd like to rename! For the Digital Assets section, maybe break into a new paragraph right before "Thus, two major contemporary legislative proposals have come forth to address the issue", just to avoid big chunks of text that could lose the audience. Overall, your article looks really great!! :)
Obtusesquare (talk) 05:39, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
Qewel Peer Review
The sentence, "The photos exposed the 'horrendous' realities of racial injustice" might stray a bit from the standard of neutrality the content should adhere to. The bibliography list at the end of the article can be removed. It would be worthwhile to expand the article further so that it encompasses post-mortem rights or lack thereof in areas outside of the United States, especially in the first section regarding post-mortem privacy in law. Perhaps under this same section notable legislation regarding post-mortem privacy in different states can be elaborated here. Any other examples of relevant court cases could also be added. Qewel (talk) 08:43, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
Source of article : Wikipedia
0 Comments