User:Beedizzle21/sandbox

 Article Evaluation 

Clinical death

Content

In evaluating this article, the information and sub-content provided was relevant to the overall article topic. The article does a good job in clearly defining what constitutes a "death" in the clinical setting. Oftentimes, people who communicate in everyday language may casually use the word "death" which can vary in meaning depending on the context in which the word is used. The article covered important information so that readers of the page can categorize someone who is clinically dead vs. someone who is considered legally dead or brain dead. Some of the sources used for this page were from the late 1980s and early 1990s so more recent information can be added to further update this topic. The article would be greatly improved with the addition of newer sources.

The sections on life support and controlled clinical death can use specific examples that have occurred. Examples of specific cases were provided in other sections such as the final section and the part about hypothermia.

Tone

The article was mostly neutral throughout. No claims were made that seemed biased toward a position. The topic of clinical death in general and the subtopics in the article in particular were not too controversial to the extent that an editor can write information that is biased. The main controversy that this topic can stir up was mentioned near the end of the article. There have been cases where families have argued what defines death as it pertained to their loved one. An editor of this article could have expressed their opinion towards this idea but previous writers have only given examples of cases without stating their thoughts.

Sources

Pressing a few of the links to the sources provided do lead to the listed citation.The sources come from academic journals, encyclopedias, as well as news articles. These sources are also listed accordingly when they are cited in the actual article. As mentioned above, some of these links provided should be updated so that the information is more recent. Perhaps articles that are specifically from medical journals or professionals could be added since this is about death in the clinical setting.

Talk Page

The talk page rates this article as B-class and of high importance. The editors on the talk page have disputed certain information from the article such as whether "cardiac arrest" is the main factor in determining a clinical death. Additionally, there was disagreement about clinical death vs. legal death. There has also been a complaint about sources not being adequate or recent in explaining a concept such as the relationship between brain cells dying or being damaged and oxygen.

Death has not been mentioned in class yet but certain sentences in the article were relevant to recent class discussions. An example is the physician in charge of a dying patient has to make a decision whether to continue treatment that would save their life or cease all treatment.

= Article Selection: Death = I have chosen the article, Death, to edit and improve. Of note, this article is of relevance and interest to WikiProject Death and other WikiProjects as well.

This article is rated as a level-2 vital article in the category of science and rated as C-class.

Content
The content of this article is relatively thorough in expanding on the overarching topic. Death can be referred to in a vast range of contexts and this article generally does a good job of providing subtopics that can be improved on. Categories range from the cause of death to culture and religion and are all important to understanding the central theme of death. I think that some sections could've been more elaborate such as the subtopics on location and religion. In terms of location, the section is quite brief on the place of death transitioning to outside of one's home. As far as the area on religion, only 3 major and well-known religions are added, but, perhaps other religions and its history could be added on.

Tone
The article is written mostly in a neutral tone all throughout. Concepts related to death were explained and defined without necessarily taking a side that would stir controversy or debate. The sections that could cause dispute amongst individuals are the areas about society, culture, and religion. Otherwise, the article's tone is to inform and state facts about the topic.

https://helda.helsinki.fi/bitstream/handle/10138/158336/Human%20Death%20as%20a%20Concept%20of%20Practical%20Philosophy.pdf;sequence=1
Definitions of Death This article provides a broad scope on defining death.

The Definition of Death This article defines death from a conceptual standpoint as well as an epistemological one.

Adding References to Wikipedia Article
To the article, Death, I added the following citation:

More specifically, death occurs when a living entity experiences irreversible cessation of all functioning. As it pertains to human life, death is an irreversible process where someone loses their existence as a person. This reference is citation #[16] in the article

Article Draft - Death
Problems of Definition - main section to be edited

In the past, adoption of this ‘total brain’ definition was a conclusion of the President’s Commission for the Study of Ethical Problems in Medicine and Biomedical and Behavioral Research in 1980. They concluded that this approach to defining death sufficed in reaching a uniform definition nationwide. A multitude of reasons were presented to support this definition including: uniformity of standards in law for establishing death; consumption of a family’s fiscal resources for artificial life support; and legal establishment for equating brain death with death in order to proceed with organ donation.

While there is opposition to the category of “brain death,” there are proponents of its application for determining death. A difficulty of determining death is rooted in whether to think of death as a single, all-or-nothing event or as a process of dying that has multiple stages. If one were to consider death as a process of passing away, then support of the brain death definition is due to a judgement that it is the most reasonable stage along that process to determine someone as dead.

Aside from the issue of support of or dispute against brain death, there is another inherent problem in this categorical definition: the variability of its application in medical practice. In 1995, the American Academy of Neurology (AAN), established a set of criteria that became the medical standard for diagnosing neurologic death. At that time, three clinical features had to be satisfied in order to determine “irreversible cessation” of the total brain including: coma with clear etiology, cessation of breathing, and lack of brainstem reflexes. This set of criteria was then updated again most recently in 2010, but substantial discrepancies still remain across hospitals and medical specialties.

Peer Review - edited by Siqi
Does well: While its difficult to understand the given that the article section is taken as an excerpt from the main article, it is evident that the author raises great ethical and points introducing that death has stages rather than an all or one event. In addition, the sources are very well vetted and appear very relevant to the topics discussed.

Overall I think the most important thing to change regarding this section would be to clarify the concepts brought up. Overall the tone and syntax of the 3 paragraphs seems very technical as compared to preceding paragraphs, making understanding and reading tedious. In addition, more examples and citations can be given as well.

In terms of specific improvement,

For paragraph 1 clearly define what is total brain and how it relates to the information prior. A cursory search in the main Wikipedia article gave no indication/definition as to what the "total brain" mentioned refers to. The last sentence can be restructured to give more clarity, as currently it is verbose. For example, "financial burdens of artificial life support" instead of "consumption of a family’s fiscal resources for artificial life support".

For paragraph 2 there can be more expansion of the idea of death as all or nothing event. The last sentence of paragraph 2 could be edited to be a little clear, perhaps breaking down into 2 separate sentences.

For paragraph 3 it would be helpful to use an specific example or citation in demonstrating the variability in the application of of the categorical definition of brain death in a clinical setting. Along similar lines, there could be more explanation on the "substantial discrepancies" that remain across hospitals and medical specialties".

Peer Review by Irina
Hi Brian! Overall, your edit seems like a great addition to this wikipedia page. You bring up new ideas that are important for this discussion. Here's some of my thoughts on improvements or things to consider:


 * I recommend rewording the first sentence of your paragraph into active voice to make it easier to understand for readers (ie. "In the 1980, the President's Commission from the Study of Ethical Problems in Medicine and Biomedical and Behavioral Research adopted this definition of 'total brain [death].'"
 * You use total brain death, while the beginning of this section refers to it as whole-brain death. It might seem like common sense, but I recommend being consistent with your terminology to avoid confusing readers or otherwise clarifying it in the text.
 * Since this section of the article is quite lengthy and has many, different ideas, I suggest adding subheadings to each main problem to make it easier to read and better organized (Ex. Whole Brain Death).
 * Your second paragraph could use more cohesion and clarity. It seems like it should be focused on the idea of why death is difficult to determine depending on whether one believes it is a singular event or a gradual process. If that's the case, I recommend you expand more on that topic. The first sentence could be reworded to be more relevant to the main idea of the paragraph and maybe should not be the leading sentence. It makes me think that you're going to talk about proponents of using brain death to determine death, but instead go to talk about death as a singular event vs gradual process.
 * In your third paragraph, what was the criteria updated to in 2010? And what discrepancies are there?

Feel free to ask me any questions about my feedback! It looks good so far though. Good luck with the rest of your project!

- Irina

Peer Review Response
Response #1 to Siqi:

Thank you for your peer review, Siqi! I will take your suggestions into account and try to adjust the language so that the concepts will be easier to understand in general. Part of the difficulty I had in adding to the article was trying to not repeat something that was already said as well as trying to find my own words to explain an idea. I will also try to be more specific by adding an example with a concept as you had mentioned.

Response #2 to Irina:

Thank you for your peer review and suggestions Irina! First off, I think I will adjust my terminology to be consistent as you had mentioned. I changed up the words 'total' and 'whole' just to avoid being redundant especially as I've seen the words used interchangeably. Additionally, I will try to make each paragraph relevant to its introductory sentence so that the content is easier to follow. I will keep your recommendations in mind as I continue to write my article and focus on achieving more cohesion in my writing.