User talk:CelticsFan3

Peer-review
Hi CelticsFan3, I just peer-reviewed your article! Hotpink789! (talk) 09:20, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

Lead

I noticed that you didn't change the lead section from the original article. Maybe you could add more information, so the lead section reflects the components of the article that you are adding. This was the lead section gives a more comprehensive view of your entire article. For instance, you could include an overview of the concerns with PHI.

Impression

This was a very organized article that flowed very well and was easy to understand. I liked how you used reliable sources, and provided the pros and cons of PHI. The content was neutral, which was great. The article can be improved by adding citations to all the information presented and adding information to the lead section.

Content

-There is no citation for the "HIPAA Privacy Rule" section, and that would be helpful to add.

- Grammar fix: whenever you right "US" make sure you write it as "U.S." I noticed that sometimes you left the periods out of the acronym.

- When you list the Common Forms of Cybersecurity Attacks on PHI, it would be helpful to provide a definition of everything on that list as most people will not know what they are.

- Additionally, with the Concerns with PHI section, I noticed that none of the information was cited, so make sure you add citations to all the information added. Hotpink789! (talk) 03:49, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

Hey!
Hey CelticsFan3, I also happen to be a C's fan (Jaylen Brown is my favorite player). Here's to a productive and fun semester. Redpandafan — Preceding unsigned comment added by Redpandafan (talk • contribs) 21:35, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

Hello!
Hi CelticsFan3, nice to meet you! I'm also a huge fan of basketball too! Hoping for a great semester ahead! Best, 99rebound

Welcome!
Hello, CelticsFan3, and welcome to Wikipedia! My name is Ian and I work with Wiki Education; I help support students who are editing as part of a class assignment.

I hope you enjoy editing here. If you haven't already done so, please check out the student training library, which introduces you to editing and Wikipedia's core principles. You may also want to check out the Teahouse, a community of Wikipedia editors dedicated to helping new users. Below are some resources to help you get started editing. If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to contact me on my talk page. Ian (Wiki Ed) (talk) 20:17, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

Lead

 * Lead has not been updated to reflect changes in the article
 * Lead includes a concise and relevant introductory sentence
 * Lead does not include a brief description of the section "Concerns with PHI" or "HIPAA Privacy Rule"
 * Lead does not include information that's not in the article
 * Lead is concise and not overly detailed

Content

 * Content added is relevant to the topic (link HIPAA Privacy Rule Wikipedia article)
 * Content is up to date (mainly from late 2010s which is good!)

Tone and Balance

 * Content is neutral
 * No biased, overrepresented, or underrepresented views
 * No persuasion

Sources and References

 * One outdated source
 * "HIPAA: What? De-identification of Protected Health Information (PHI)". HIPAA Research Guide. University of Wisconsin-Madison. August 26, 2003. Retrieved June 12, 2014.

Organization

 * Article is well-organized and structured
 * No spelling or grammatical errors
 * Maybe capitalize the first letter of each word in the list under "Common Forms..."

Overall
Great job! I really enjoyed reading your article. If you could add more and elaborate on your additional sections that would enhance the article a lot.Luckyclover44 (talk) 04:27, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

Peer Review Week 8
Peer review

Lead

The lead section looks good. Only suggestion would be to potentially explain what a "covered entity" is. It's pretty self-explanatory, but could hurt to add something to the effect of: "Covered entities are institutions or people, specifically defined under US law, who are bound to such privacy measures with regard to protected health information." It may be unnecessary, especially because it's outlined later in the article, but figured I'd throw it out there.

Content

The content appears to be up-to-date. There is nothing that doesn't belong, but I think it might be helpful to include some information to preface why anynomization or de-identification is necessary. Is it because other people have access to the depersonalized datasets? Or in case of a breach? Also, is there a reason why the "De-identification versus anonymization" category is a subsection of the "United States" section? If it is not something that is specific to the US, but to PHI in general, it may be worth foratting a little differently.

Tone and Balance

The tone is neutral and balanced. There is no clear bias present in the article.

Sources and References

The sources appear to be reliable and up to date, although I think there could be more of them. The links are all in working order.

Organization As mentioned above, I think that the sections could be better clarified. Not sure why the information on "De-identification versus anyonymization" is included under the US section, unless it is specific to the US. It seems like that might merit a second section that deals more with the technical remedies or protection measures (as opposed to the section on what qualifies PHI).

For New Articles Only

The article does meet Wiki's notability requirements--there are 2-3 reliable secondary sources. I think there is probably more information available, but that really depends on the inteded scope of the article. There may be room for other sections dedicated to legislation, or a more fleshed-out section on protective measure, or even potentially a section about major PHI data breaches over the previous years. The article also links to other articles.

Stellasuperba (talk) 19:45, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

Week 9 buddy article review
Hi CelticsFan3,

Overall great start to your draft! I see that you are still working on the ethics section but nice job so far. Since you are working on an existing article page, feel free to also make changes to the original content in the sections that already exist as you see fit. You can also add citations to those parts as well.

I think the ordering of your new sections fits in nicely with the article’s flow. For those added sections, make sure to add to the lead a sentence or two about the sections you’re adding, so readers can preface the rest of the article’s content. Also, don’t forget to add citations to back up your writing. You will eventually need to have all 20 sources worked into the article. You can also begin to think about what words/terms you can add other Wikipedia article links to, to allow readers to access even more information.

A few minor details:
 * Titles/headings only have the first word capitalized (eg. Common Forms of Cybersecurity Attacks on PHI should change to Common forms of cybersecurity attacks on PHI)
 * You might want to add an introductory sentence before listing common types of attacks, clarifying what the section is about/why attacks are concerns.
 * This only occurred once, but are “health care” and “healthcare” different? I noticed “healthcare” appeared once at the end and was not sure.

Keep up the good work! Madssnake (talk) 02:36, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

Week 9 Peer Review
General info Whose work are you reviewing?

celticsfan3

Link to draft you're reviewing https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User CelticsFan3/Protected_health_information?veaction=edit&preload=Template%3ADashboard.wikiedu.org_draft_template Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)

Protected health information

Evaluate the drafted changes Lead

Guiding questions:

Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer?

Lead needs to include the HIPPA privacy rule and the potential ethical concerns (I know it hasn't been added yet)

The lead is concise and efficient, those things should just be added.

Content

Guiding questions:

Is the content added relevant to the topic?

Yes

Is the content added up-to-date?

It seems to me that a lot of this content can be updated: In Particular, the Ohm article and "encouraging the use of" article. Also the Rights article and the second HIPPA article

Tone and Balance

Guiding questions:

Is the content added neutral?

Yes - I think to make the article more neutral it could include a controversy or concerns section.

Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?

Once the controversy section is added this will be better.

Sources and References

Guiding questions:

Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?

The covered entities section needs a cite. So does business associations.

Does the content accurately reflect what the cited sources say? (You'll need to refer to the sources to check this.)

Yes

Check a few links. Do they work?

Yes Penguinblueberry (talk) 03:18, 17 April 2021 (UTC)Penguinblueberry

Week 9 Peer Review #2
Lead: Great lead section! It was concise and straight to the point, and it gave a great overview of what protective health organization is. I also liked how you cited from the very beginning in the lead section to give the readers more context if they need.

Content: The content you have was really informative, and the organization of the subtopics were great. I especially liked the organization of the subtopics within main topics to create an indepth analyses of that topic/region such as the US topic and Concerns with PHI topic.

Tone and Balance: The article seems to be written in a neutral tone in my opinion. There are no hints towards any bias.

Sources and References: Great sources as they are all up to date and you have included several references which makes your article more credible.

Organization: The organization is great. As stated in the contents review, I liked the subtopics within main topics.

Images and media: N/A

Overall: Great job! There wasn't much to constructive criticize on! 99rebound (talk)

Peer Review Week 10
Lead: Great lead section! Allows readers to understand what the rest of the article will be about. Since you talk about the concerns regarding PHI later in the paper, maybe you could also introduce that in the lead.

Content: Very informative. Make sure to cite your source for the “HIPAA Privacy Rule”, “covered entities,” and “concerns with PHI” sections.

Tone and Balance: Neutral tones; found no instances of bias in my opinion.

Sources: The sources that I double-checked worked.

Organization: Organized very clearly, concisely, and understandably. Article flows well.

Overall: Overall, the article was great and very informative to read! If you can figure out a way to creatively add a picture or visual, I think that would be one way to strengthen the article even more. Hotpink789! (talk) 21:47, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

Week 10 buddy article review
Hi CelticsFan3,

Great additions to your draft! I think you have a nice organization of topics, and I look forward to reading your Protected health information storage section soon. Your tone is neutral, and you do a nice job referring to other sources before stating information. Just make sure to keep adding citations for everything.

Again, as you are adding new sections, don't forget to update the lead section with introductions to these sections, so people can get a sense of the article's content. Similarly, although Covered Entity is mentioned in the lead, I think it would be helpful to redefine it in the Covered Entities section (I understand what they are, but I think it would be beneficial to add a clearer definition).

A few minor details:
 * I'm not sure if you meant to link it, but LabMD, Inc. v. Federal Trade Commission has a broken wikipedia link attached so you can just remove it.
 * In that section ^, I think you can edit the grammar that transitions to the quote.

Nice job! Madssnake (talk) 03:34, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

Lead
Concise and informative lead! I would just suggest also briefly mentioning the privacy concerns regarding PHI that you cover in the latter half of your article.

Content
The content added is relevant and up to date.

Tone and Balance
Content is neutral. There appears to be no bias or persuasion.

Sources and References
Sources are diverse and up to date, and the ones I clicked on work! However, there appear to be several sections in the article that are lacking in citations (e.g. Covered Entities, HIPAA Privacy Rule)

Organization
Article is well-organized and structured, and there appears to be no spelling or grammatical errors. I would just suggest capitalizing the first letter of each list item under "Common Forms of Cybersecurity Attacks on PHI."

Overall
Awesome job! I really enjoyed reading your article; it contains a lot of well-researched information and I can't wait to see how the final draft turns out. Luckyclover44 (talk) 01:38, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

Week 11 buddy article review
Hi CelticsFan3,

I've looked over your most recent additions, and great job! I think you do a good job of content balance, with no sections being too long or too short. That definitely can be said about your article as a whole as well, too. Make sure to keep adding citations (including the 20 from your annotated bibliography), especially to sections with no citations at the moment (like the physical storage section).

If you find it helpful for your article, you can also consider adding images to enhance the article. (Check out the training module for how to do so). Also, most of your headings are correctly capitalized, but there are a few headings that still need to change (feel free to change the existing ones as well).

Nice article! Pat yourself on the back for adding so much to this article! Madssnake (talk) 21:32, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

Week 11 Peer Review
Lead section looks good and gives a comprehensive overview of what will be included in the article.


 * The content is all well-written, concise, and appears to be neutral. I wonder if it would be worth putting a brief explanation on each of the "Common Forms of Cybersecurity Attacks on PHI"?


 * Organization: I see that "Covered Entities" and "Business Associates" are included as subsections of "De-identification versus anonymization." Is there a reason for this?

The cited material all seems up to date and from reputable sources. Also, the page is well-linked to other relevant topics.

I don't see any grammatical or spelling errors.

Overall, the article looks really good. Nice job! Stellasuperba (talk) 20:29, 1 May 2021 (UTC)