Talk:Celebrity privacy

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Mrzy732993. Peer reviewers: Rainbowdolph, Tommytheprius, Breadyornot.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 18:46, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 9 January 2020 and 18 April 2020. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Anmol Jindal.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 18:46, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Peer review by funfettiqueen, Week 10
As a secret (actually, maybe not so secret) lover of celebrities, I had such a good time reading your article! However, there were a few grammatical errors within your sections. In the lead paragraph, I would maybe change "the privacy of celebrity" to the privacy of celebrities, since it is a collective, plural noun. Additionally, when you write about paparazzi chasing "the" celebrities cars, it is important to be unspecific and just write "paparazzi often chase celebrities' cars". I would also consider rewriting one of the last sentences as "“celebrity privacy is highly contested, as fans and paparazzi often overstep boundaries; For example, paparazzi invade the privacy of celebrities to take photos to later sell to magazines for profit...etc." This way, it is easier to digest and understand. In the lead paragraph, I was a bit confused why you included the specifics of celebrity children and the anti-paparazzi bill. I would just stick with general information in the lead section rather than diving into specific topics that you aim to discuss later on. In a following section, you write celebrity privacy "compared to the general privacy". This wording is a little off, so I would maybe reword it to "compared to the privacy of normal civilians" or something along those lines. The sentence “Even though celebrities, like other people, deserve the basic right to privacy, the boundaries of privacy and publicity for celebrities are blurred” might come across as a bit biased (even though it should be common sense!) Also, at another point in the article you capitalize the word celebrities, which is probably just a mistake. In this section, I would consider rewording the sentence about legal protection to “Because celebrities sometimes sacrifice their personal privacy for publicity, they may not be protected legally". Additionally I would change this sentence to “it usually takes a lot of time and effort for celebrities to win legal battles over privacy, as celebrity privacy is sometimes deemed as “controlled publicity”. In the section about Pemela Anderson, I would look over the tense used and maybe rewrite the first sentence to all past tense, making it "...broadcasted a story that contained...". In the Celebrity privacy section. Also, instead of writing “Besides, a U.S media scholar claims that by often including exaggerated and untrue content, paparazzi bring the “sensationalism” to other press and decrease the credibility in news industry overall.”, make it more scholarly by rewriting to “Occasionally, paparazzi sell exaggerated content without context in order to sensationalize a particular moment, furthermore decreasing credibility in the news industry.” No need to reference a scholar’s claim if you’re going to cite it. I am also a tad confused by this sentence: In addition to the public and media scholars, mainstream press also strives to separate themselves from paparazzi’s negative image. It also does not seem specifically relevant to princess Diana’s death. In this section, you also reference a report in the sentence itself. I think it’s best to write “some scholars claim that” rather than specifically writing out the name. The “Ethical Boundary of Paparazzi” and “Paparazzi as ‘Watchdogs’" paragraphs read a bit like a thesis statement for an in-class Essay. Remember that wikipedia is encyclopedic, so stray away from discussing particular news reporter names and making claims based off evidence. You also do this in the beginning of “Fan vs. Non-fan behavior”. You consistently refer to Hung and his arguments, so be careful of doing this throughout your article. However, your legal section ends off really strong and is written in an informative unbiased manner, so great job! I am a bit confused why you made a section called “other laws”. What differentiates them from laws in North America? Overall, I really love your article and can tell you did really good research surrounding the topic.

Peer review
Your lead seems pretty good. If I had to make a suggestion I'd say that you could add a quick sentence about privacy vs celebrity privacy. Otherwise I think it covers most of what you say later and is a solid introduction to celebrity privacy. In the privacy vs celebrity privacy section, I'm having a hard time understanding what you mean when you talk about "celebrity privacy" getting turned into "managed publicity", so you may want to clarify. I think it was smart to include the Hulk Hogan example since it was so popular and so recent, but you may want to consider adding in the fact that the main Gawker blog shut down because of bankruptcy after that lawsuit. I don't really get what you're going for with the "paparazzi is the best journalism" and "paparazzi is the worst journalism" statements, but I assume it will be clearer after you add more. I also assume you'll be adding more to the celebrity privacy intrusions by fans section, but I'm interested to hear about John Lennon. You may want to hyperlink to his wikipedia page because I believe it provides a lot of information on his death. I don't know what a saesaeng fan is, but again I assume it'll become clearer once you add more. The legal section is lengthy and informative, but it's a bit dense. I think it would be good to link to the laws you mention so that a reader could get clearer information if they wanted to. In the sentence where you say the CNPA says "penalties for reckless driving targeted at journalists are unfair", you might want to mention why they think it's unfair. You might want to clarify last sentence of the last paragraph of the California "Anti-Paparazzi" Law section because I can't really understand the point. Need to add more to the privacy laws regarding children bullet point. I think you should make the United Kingdom, France, and Canada into bold titles and add to them. In the New Zealand section when you say they "do not get enough legal protection regarding their privacy rights" it sounds a little biased. You could say something along the lines of "there is not much legal protection for them according to the current legal framework" instead.

Overall, I think you have a good start for your article. Obviously, you will be adding a good amount of information to certain sections, so it's hard for me to say how balanced the lengths of sections are. Except for that one line in the New Zealand section, I do think you have a neutral, encyclopedic tone. In my opinion, the most interesting part of your article was when you talked about how the wedding of Catherine Zeta-Jones and Michael Douglas and how they strategically exposed their privacy. My biggest suggestions would be to add more to the lines that just have bullet points, use more hyperlinks, and cite sources because I don't see any so far. Good job!

Tommytheprius (talk) 02:49, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

Responce to Peer Review Week 10
Thanks Maggie for giving me really useful advice! I have corrected all the grammar mistakes that you pointed out, and I will use grammarly to check my entire article next week! Also, thanks for re-writing some of my sentences. Although the meaning looks the same, your way of expressing the idea does sound much more academic and encyclopedic! I will try to imitate this tone and keep improving my article. The most important thing is that you helped me find out why my article is still considered as too personal even though I’m sure I didn’t include any personal opinion. I didn't realize that I should not mention the authors too much and put introduction and summary sentences in each paragraph (that does make the article look very essay-like). Following your advice, I took out all the redundant sentences that were not listing the facts, so now it should look much more encyclopedic than before. I have also emailed the content adviser and got many detailed suggestions on re-structuring and wording. But still really thanks for first pointing that out and giving advice on the problem that I haven’t realized in the entire semester! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mrzy732993 (talk • contribs) 05:05, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: PHMD 2040 Service - Learning
— Assignment last updated by Ninaanastasio (talk) 17:33, 19 March 2023 (UTC)