This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Use of restraints on pregnant women article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||
|
This article clearly has a slant toward a certain point of view, that of opposition to the subject. There is a small portion with the opposing view, consisting of two sentences. The title also needs work; it sounds like the title of an essay and not an encyclopedia article. 331dot ( talk) 03:18, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
I think this article does a great job of providing a comprehensive outline of the issues surrounding use of restraints on pregnant women. Great use of statistics and formatting. I would recommend including a few more links to other articles, and simplifying some of the wording. I would also suggest including some more information surrounding different viewpoints, especially in the Policy Perspectives and Legal Perspectives sections. Overall, great article!
LHall19 (
talk) 01:52, 6 November 2014 (UTC)
This is a very comprehensive and engaging article. The legal perspectives section was very interesting, and I think it could be expanded even further. Great arrangement of the material within the article, and on the whole a solid article!--
Hhoover42 (
talk) 04:00, 6 November 2014 (UTC)
Speaking specifically about the domestic section of this article I think this section does a fine job of outlining how the United States is handling this situation. My classmate did a good job of drawing attention to the specific legislation each state presents in regard to this issue. The references my classmate chose are relevant and valid. I suggest that the wording of certain sentences change in order to create a better flow. Perhaps instead of “in Pennsylvania, they allow..” say “Pennsylvania allows..” Also, I believe that the phrase “taken the lead” should be removed from the second sentence because it makes the tone less impartial. Also I suggest removing “More broadly speaking” in the last sentence. All in all I found the article informative.
Amuzzarelli (
talk) 14:54, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
This is linked from Ann Widdecombe, British politician. That indicates that a British perspective - and likely others - exist, but the article leaves it out. It should be expanded to keep the excellent US information, but cover other countries. 46.233.77.186 ( talk) 05:29, 5 April 2018 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Use of restraints on pregnant women article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||
|
This article clearly has a slant toward a certain point of view, that of opposition to the subject. There is a small portion with the opposing view, consisting of two sentences. The title also needs work; it sounds like the title of an essay and not an encyclopedia article. 331dot ( talk) 03:18, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
I think this article does a great job of providing a comprehensive outline of the issues surrounding use of restraints on pregnant women. Great use of statistics and formatting. I would recommend including a few more links to other articles, and simplifying some of the wording. I would also suggest including some more information surrounding different viewpoints, especially in the Policy Perspectives and Legal Perspectives sections. Overall, great article!
LHall19 (
talk) 01:52, 6 November 2014 (UTC)
This is a very comprehensive and engaging article. The legal perspectives section was very interesting, and I think it could be expanded even further. Great arrangement of the material within the article, and on the whole a solid article!--
Hhoover42 (
talk) 04:00, 6 November 2014 (UTC)
Speaking specifically about the domestic section of this article I think this section does a fine job of outlining how the United States is handling this situation. My classmate did a good job of drawing attention to the specific legislation each state presents in regard to this issue. The references my classmate chose are relevant and valid. I suggest that the wording of certain sentences change in order to create a better flow. Perhaps instead of “in Pennsylvania, they allow..” say “Pennsylvania allows..” Also, I believe that the phrase “taken the lead” should be removed from the second sentence because it makes the tone less impartial. Also I suggest removing “More broadly speaking” in the last sentence. All in all I found the article informative.
Amuzzarelli (
talk) 14:54, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
This is linked from Ann Widdecombe, British politician. That indicates that a British perspective - and likely others - exist, but the article leaves it out. It should be expanded to keep the excellent US information, but cover other countries. 46.233.77.186 ( talk) 05:29, 5 April 2018 (UTC)