User talk:Msjohn15/sandbox

Hi Kenzie, great article! You seem to have a good grasp on how to edit articles, add citations, and format in general. As a whole, this piece is very well put together. I just have a few suggestions for edits, most of them just pertaining to clarification of information or minor typos/word use.

1. (Background) I thought it was the right choice for you to neutralize the first sentence by eliminating the descriptive adjectives. However, including the name/form of cancer she had could provided some context. Ex. "At age thirteen, Angela Stoner was diagnosed with Ewing’s sarcoma, a form of cancer"

2. (Background) "During a regular hospital visit" possibly change to "During a routine hospital visit"

3. (Background)"Her cancer was shown to have returned in the form of an inoperable tumor" possibly change to "The Xray revealed that her cancer had returned in the form of an inoperable tumor"

4. (Background) "Carder was again inquired as to whether she wished to deliver the baby, to which she provided an ambiguous answer” The first half of this sentence is a little tricky to understand at first glance

5. (Background)When you talked about her answer being ambiguous, I was wondering what the source of the ambiguity was. Why was it so hard for doctors to get a yes or no answer out of her? Was it just because she was ill and on medication? Or was it because she was indecisive? Could the doctors have told her that this was a pressing matter and that she needed to make a decision otherwise a decision would be made for her? A little more clarity about these conversations could be helpful.

6. (Initial Hearing and Procedure) "administrators of the hospital convened a court hearing at the hospital" change to "administrators of the hospital convened in a court hearing at the hospital"

7. (Initial Hearing and Procedure) "It was also stated that the Carder was likely to die sooner as a result of such a procedure" change to "It was also stated that Mrs./Angela Carder was likely to die sooner as a result of such a procedure"

8. (Initial Hearing and Procedure) In the section where your talking about the evidence that was presented to the court, I was a little confused about what evidence was produced by what side. Also are the doctors you spoke about contradicting that evidence on Carder's side or against?

9. (Initial Hearing and Procedure) "Carder was informed of the court's order once she became conscious and asked if she wanted to proceed with the Caesarean section" change to "Carder was informed of the court's order once she became conscious, and she was asked if she wanted to proceed with the Caesarean section"

10. (Initial Hearing and Procedure) When you talk about Carder contradicting her initial decision to go ahead with the proceeder, what do you mean by the word contradict? Did she initially agree, then change her mind and stand strong with her new decision? Or was she just confusing the doctors, giving mixed signals and flip flopping back and forth? Clarity here would help the reader understand the case better overall

11. I'm not sure what "gain a stay" means. I thought your article was very readable but just look over it and make sure the terms you use can be understood by someone who has minimal knowledge on court systems/proceeders/terminology etc. and/or add links to terms where it's appropriate (which you've already done a good job of)

Zoejerome (talk) 20:50, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for your suggestions, especially those about what was unclear or too much legal terminology. That is very helpful to me given my sources were all from legal journals and a little dense. Msjohn15 (talk) 23:30, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

Dr. Dove's response:

I think this is excellent, Kenzie, and just have a few suggestions. While you've done a good job of eliminating biased phrasing, sometimes you seem to have also cut a few relevant details (as Zoe mentions above in terms of the type of cancer). Perhaps it's because there are no good citations for those details--if that's the case, leave them out--but I do think there are places where it would be helpful to know, for example, what week of her pregnancy Angela as at when her tumor was discovered or whether doctors were treating her for the cancer (palliative care and sedation) or to prolong the life of her fetus (use of a feeding tube). Also, when you say "Carder was again inquired as to whether she wished to deliver the baby, to which she provided an ambiguous answer" in the background section, I'm not sure what that means. Perhaps you could be more specific? Did she say "yes" and then retract or did she say she wasn't sure? Without going too deep into the details it may be worth stating what the ACLU and others cited in their amicus brief as the reasons for their request to vacate the ruling versus what arguments the opposing organizations gave to keep it in place.

Adovevie (talk) 19:24, 13 March 2017 (UTC)