User talk:Class20/PrivacyandCongress

Peer Review of Class20's article by Jaysdayy:
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia < User talk:Class20 Today I peer-reviewed Class20's article about Privacy and Congress. Class20, the topic you are writing about is very interesting! I'm looking forward to learning more about it. First, I think you have a good structure with a lot of useful information. The article effectively contains a balanced coverage of information and I like the way you organized your sections. I would like to point out your lead section for a moment. The second sentence of your lead seems to repeat the same thing twice.In the following sentence you wrote: "These congressional actions help clarify what constitutes privacy tort and how to better serve/protect peoples “right to privacy” through these actions", it seems to repeat "actions" twice. I don't know if I am supposed to be looking into grammar or sentence structure but for this reason, this sentence stood out to me. Also, by looking at your lead and connecting that with the rest of your article it was somewhat unclear to me what the main topic is. Is it Privacy in the U.S. government or is it Privacy in Congress specifically? Perhaps I am just new to the subjects and don't comprehend but it seemed a bit confusing to me. As someone who is not that well educated on the three branches of government, I may be wrong but I feel that your lead talks about mentioning the three branches of government but in your outline/subtopics/content, they are not clear or organized in an efficient manner enough for me to recognize them.Perhaps, mentioning the titles in your lead would be helpful? In terms of sources and citations, I think that the article relies heavily on only a small number of sources.Perhaps as you develop your article more you will likely add more sources to support its length. Lastly, some sections are more developed than others but I understand that this article is continuing to grow and improve! Great job so far! Jaysdayy (talk) 01:16, 23 March 2018 (UTC)


 * I agree the second sentence was poor wording and I plan on deleting it/clarifying the purpose of the actions explained in first sentence. As for the the subject matter, I agree that by including as much as I have, I have lost sight of what the original topic was. But as I continue to research I feel like I may potentially change my topic from either the Congress,to the courts or the three branches of the government which is why I tried to leave it as ambiguous as possible (basically I don't have to restructure everything if I do switch topics). If I do change it though, I see now that the branches may not be as clear as I initially thought they were. Also ya, I honestly only used like three sources for the information I wrote and that was a result of a combination of lack of time and lack of sources, but I definitely plan on changing that in the new future. I totally agree with everything you said, so thanks! Class20 (talk) 20:06, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

Peer Review
Class20, first I want to say that I respect your decision to tackle such an expansive topic! Privacy and Congress covers so much information, so researching it must be very meticulous - props to you. I think your page is very well organized and I can see how you've thought everything out. I agree with Jaysdayy that the second sentence is a bit redundant, but that is an easy fix. Perhaps you could add a citation to the first section too, to back up what you're saying. Second, I think the "Privacy in Literature" section is very interesting, as I had no idea something like that existed, but I think you could probably make the heading for it a bit more specific, like "Privacy in legal literature" or something just to make it clearer for the reader upon first glance. I think the paragraphs for each section under Privacy in Literature are well written and informative, but you could probably add some more citations to various sentences just to be safe. Privacy Amendments and Privacy in Congress are two sections that should definitely be included, but I'm wondering if the Privacy in Courts section should be a different page entirely. Maybe it would be good to briefly mention and link the cases, but they might belong on a different, more niche page. Looks like you've got a solid plan for the Privacy in Congress section! Overall, I'd just suggest to make sure you cite what you're saying more often (just to be safe!!). Nice job so far! --Prizmic (talk) 04:32, 23 March 2018 (UTC)


 * I also agree that the second sentence was a bit redundant and have drafted an alternative, thanks for pointing that out I honestly, forgot that part of the article existed. As for the Privacy in literature section I might change the title so it is more clear for the reader, or like change to History of Privacy in Literature. I also did start adding more citations in the existent paragraphs, because I realized that adding a citation at the end of the paragraph doesn't translate to a citation for the entire section, but thanks for making me more aware of my paraphrasing issues. I also agree that maybe the Privacy in Congress section may be extraneous information, so I may either shorten the section or change the topic to Privacy in Congress and Courts. Thanks for reviewing! Class20 (talk) 20:12, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

Gloria's peer review
Your article contains a lot of interesting information regarding laws, court cases, and government actions on privacy. The article is very helpful for reader who lacks experiences with the American political and legal system. There are just some suggestions that I would like to make. From my understanding, I feel like that the section on the court cases and judiciary should be combined together. Also, it will be nice to have Wikipedia internal links to related pages for those court cases and legislation passed. --GloriaGu2018 (talk) 06:05, 23 March 2018 (UTC)


 * I definitely agree that I should link to other internal wikipages, and plan on doing that at the end in one sweep of the entire article. As for the judiciary section, I think I might just delete that section entirely, because it feels extraneous. Thanks for reviewing my article! Class20 (talk) 20:15, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

Peer Review
Class 20, first of all, I like how you took on the challenge to tackle such a broad topic. I think you're doing a wonderful job so far! I also like how you left yourself little notes to go back and fix certain aspects of your draft as you continue improving and drafting. Also, I like how in your lead section you blended Courts and Congress to highlight what you will be talking about. After your first section about "The Right of Privacy" perhaps you can make a second paragraph where you give an example just to contrast pure information to an example of that (just an idea, it's fine the way it is as well). Under "Invasion of privacy torts" you could perhaps include an embedded link for the Privacy Act of 1974 so you won't have to explain explicitly what it is. Also, why did you specifically choose the 1st, 3rd, 4th, 5th, and 9th amendments? Perhaps before talking about the first amendment state why you choose these specific ones or why these have the most important over the rest in terms of privacy. In the "Infringement Legislation," I am a bit confused as to what it means exactly and am kind of thrown off because you start with an example. I look forward to learning more and reading the timeline as well as the privacy in the judiciary section. Also, I might be totally off and confused but are you including the legislative and judicial branches of government and excluding executive?

Just remember to go back to all the little notes you left yourself and I like the structure, just after the Congress aspect I am a bit thrown off but that might just be me. I do recommend using more embedded links for all these acts and amendments as you go. Overall, your article is neutral and provides insightful information to readers! Wikipedia readers will be happy! I look forward to reading more! Great job so far! GibsOfficial (talk) 01:14, 1 April 2018 (UTC)Gibs


 * I am glad you enjoyed the notes I left for myself; it appears other students did the same thing, which I personally believe is super helpful. I agree that I need to add more embedded links and I hope to do that once I have written down most of the content in the article and will definitely hyperlink the Privacy Act of 1974. As to why I chose the 1st, 3rd, 4th, 5th, and 9th amendments, it is because that is the ones that were consistently referenced within my readings that were used within court cases that were used as a means to protect or infringe upon an individuals right to privacy. I tried to organize the legislation into ones that infringed upon and protected our right to privacy which is why I entitled the section "Infringement Legislation," however I see how that can be deceiving so I may just scrap that idea and put it all within the umbrella of legislation and within the paragraph explain how it infringes upon existing rights. And yes, I do plan on including the executive branch but was still hashing out what to include without overloading myself. Class20 (talk) 09:35, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

Peer Review of Class20's article by Jaysdayy:
Class20, your article was very interesting to read! I think your lead is very well balanced and reflects the most important information in your article. I liked how you discussed the three branches of government and did so equally. While reading your lead I felt like I did not fully understand what your main point was. Are you mainly talking about technological change within the government? Or is it about improving privacy within the government? Or both? Perhaps this is due to my lack of knowledge on the subject. Furthermore, I think that your structure is great! I like the way that you organized your content. It is very easy to understand and there is an easy flow of information. However, I did find that the sections “Privacy in the Executive” and 'Regulation of Privacy legislation” were lacking information and needs work. (I am sure that is your plan) Also, is there anything else you can add under Privacy in legal based literature? Is this part about literature that has been written on the subject? I was a bit thrown off by the word “literature”. Overall, I think your content is well balanced. In terms of the tone of your article, for the most part it sounded encyclopedic to me. There were a few sentences which raised questions. For example, in the lead you wrote: “It is clear that one must analyze the change…” Would this be considered your opinion? If not, please disregard that. I am having trouble trying to figure out exactly what to look for. In the lead you also say the word 'analyze' twice. Perhaps you could re-write that sentence. Here is a suggestion: “Evidently, privacy practice relative to the three branches is important in order to analyze how the U.S. government has improved privacy rights”. ( I hope I am not skewing the meaning of this sentence with this re-write) One thing that I ran into while reading your article was that I was completely unfamiliar with the word “tort” and wanted to ask whether it is a common word or if it is appropriate to offer a definition for it? I did notice a few grammatical mistakes. First, the last sentence of the section “Invasion of Privacy torts” has a repeated phrase. “as the” is repeated twice. Also, for that same sentence who is “most” describing? Next, in this section of “Rakas v Illinois” the fourth sentence says “they search could be used…”. Did you mean to put “the search could be used”? In the “Privacy in legislative” section, the sentence “it is important to form a congressional timeline” has the word “important” misspelled as “imprtnat”. Lastly, I would like to ask who are you referring to when you say “executive others” at the end of the section “Privacy in the Executive”. To end, I think that you have pretty good and reliable sources. Will you be bringing in more? Please let me know if you would like for me to clarify anything. Great job so far! I look forward to learning more about your topic!

Jaysdayy (talk) 07:26, 6 April 2018 (UTC)


 * Sorry forgot to reply earlier. This is what I had to say from last week:In response to Jaysdayy’s review, I agree that I do seem to follow a paper styled writing, so while it may be encyclopedic at times, my use of the words “clear” and “apparent”,makes it seem like I am also writing a persuasive paper. In terms of the main point of my article I think it is about legal privacy change through government initiation. As you said I definitely hadn’t started the sections “Privacy in the Executive” and 'Regulation of Privacy legislation” and do plan on working on those sections during this week. As we discussed during lab, the Literature section is getting scrapped so good eye, because you definitely noticed the issue with that section relative to the subject of the article immediately. I have created a draft to change the sentence that you mentioned about how “It is clear that one must analyze the change…” to be something less opinion based. The suggestion of “Evidently, privacy practice relative to the three branches is important in order to analyze how the U.S. government has improved privacy rights”, definitely fixed that problem so I appreciate that. As for the definition of tort I do feel that I should potentially define it (it is basically a fancy word for privacy law), and maybe link to the Wikipedia page that talks about privacy tort. Also I definitely struggle with grammar, and spelling whenever I sit down a type large portions, so thank you for pointing those out as I am definitely changing all of those, issues; for example I meant “executive orders” not “executive others”. Class20 (talk) 02:53, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

Peer Review
Overall I believe that your article is well-written and provides loads of information to readers. Even though you have no officially cited everything I see that you use citations and the information gathered seems neutral. I just had a few grammar and sentence structure suggestions so I shared a google doc about them. Really impressed with your work! GibsOfficial (talk) 19:41, 13 April 2018 (UTC)Gibs

Peer Review by Jaysdayy

First of all, congrats on uploading your page to the main space! It looks great as I opened it and scrolled through it. Your lead sums up all the important information of the article. Just by reading it I know what the page is all about. I like the way that you included all of the related amendments. Your structure is organized and your content seems to be well balanced. You have a good set of sources! The section of Privacy and the Executive Branch is a bit short and perhaps it could be a suggestion for further development in your talk page. Also, one of the things that I questioned as I looked through your article was the hyperlink of headings. Perhaps you can hyperlink the same title within the paragraphs instead of the titles. As I look at the titles and some are hyperlinked and some aren’t it makes it difficult to follow. Overall, great job! Jaysdayy (talk) 04:38, 20 April 2018 (UTC)