Talk:Kendra's Law

Evidence of Efficacy POV
Since this is the same data as the data on Laura's Law provided by TAC join the discussion there. Here is a link: Talk:Laura's Law — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.207.28.154 (talk) 02:14, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

I created an account. It was a lot easier than I had thought. I was User:207.207.28.154. JasonAJensenUSA (talk) 02:54, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Support has no citations
It would be better to cite each source as to their support of this measure. Referencing the Treatment Advocacy Center's opinion that they support it is not a valid citation. see WP:SPS. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JasonAJensenUSA (talk • contribs) 01:41, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

Studies
The Studies section seems to contain WP:OR. The Cochrane Collaboration, which is a meta-analysis, is a secondary source and a WP:RS. The two New York State studies are primary studies, which haven't been published in peer-reviewed journals, and shouldn't be cited directly. In order to comply with WP:MEDMOS, we need commentary by reliable secondary sources, preferably editorials or commentary in accepted medical journals. I don't think the tables belong at all. For one thing, they don't give the confidence intervals. --Nbauman (talk) 07:00, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Kendra's Law. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060109153452/http://www.nyclu.org/aot_program_tstmny_040805.html to http://www.nyclu.org/aot_program_tstmny_040805.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 13:14, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

Article is far too long and detailed
As a result of its tl;dr format, a reader will tend to only come away with the view that the subject is a very contentious one. While that might be the most specific takeaway, this article takes  far too many words  achieving it. Where, in their advocacy efforts, previous editors were unable to describe studies succinctly, WP editors now need to step in and toss out much non-relevant detail. This "book" is too long and unstructured for Wikipedia.--Quisqualis (talk) 04:27, 22 June 2022 (UTC)