User talk:Prizmic/Privacy law

Prizmic's article peer review:
Prizmic, your article is very well organized and contains a clear structure. I like the way that you divided your article into legal standards and privacy laws. This makes it easy for the reader to comprehend. I would like to know what made you decide on these two specific subtopics? (Legal standards and Privacy laws) Is there more that you can add to this section? I don't seem to see the bigger picture in terms of this section. Perhaps an intro to the section of legal standards would help? I don't know how that could be incorporated into your article but as of right now I don't know what the legal standards are set out to accomplish. I also don't see a lead so I imagine that you will be adding to another article. This is possibly why I am thrown off a little. Next, I think your article content is balanced but perhaps Thailand could use more work. It seems to be the shortest section. Lastly, I would like to know what persuaded you to choose these specific countries over others? In general, you have a good set of supporting sources and citations. I look forward to learning more about your topic! Great job so far!

Jaysdayy (talk) 01:59, 23 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks Jaysdayy! The two subtopics are based off how the Privacy law page is currently organized. The lead section for the page is already there, in addition to some other background information for international organizations. I agree that Thailand could use some more information - unfortunately there are not a lot of privacy laws there because of the country's history! I think I might add some other countries that are missing from the main page though. I chose these countries because I have been studying them in one of my classes. Thanks again! --Prizmic (talk) 04:18, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

Prizmic, you have essentially completed a full article by now, so congrats for being so ahead. I feel like you don't need to focus on content but more on organization, and grammar. In fact I didn't find many errors in your article at all, as most of my concerns where because I don't have much background information on the topic. One thing I would suggest is to retitle the  Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation section to include the Privacy Framework, or instead, reword the first sentence so it is more clear that the main part of that paragraph is the framework adopted by APEC. Initially I was a little confused as to where the first sentence of that paragraph was heading. I am also glad you inserted a lead, because it really helped me as a reader figure out what is going on, even though I know you won't be using it. Also for the Malaysia section you should hyperlink to the privacy tort page, because I personally found that page helpful when I was researching and I think it would fit well in that sentence. Your work is amazing, and I would have personally already published considering how polished it is already. Great job! Class20 (talk) 09:33, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

Peer Review
In the section about APEC I think in the last sentence instead of writing "...APEC Privacy Framework, and include self-assessment, compliance..." I think you can re-word to "...APEC Privacy Framework and include: self-assessment, compliance..." The change would pretty much be to take the comma off and add a colon after 'include'.

In the Council of Europe section, I think that hyperlinking "Council of Europe" and "Code of Conduct" is important.

In the EU section, I am kind of confused about the second sentence. Are you trying to say that because of the Directive Member States have to adopt strict privacy laws or are you just saying in general that Member states had to impose more strict privacy laws? If it is because of the Directive I would say: "The Directive required Member States to adopt strict privacy laws..." and then keep connecting the sections. I just feel like you saying "Member States must adopt" and "Companies in non-EU countries must also adopt..." leaves me asking why and who exactly is saying this. Hopefully, this makes sense if not let me know!

In the OECD section, I think you could possibly reword the second sentence to: "The OECD Guidelines helped establish an international standard for privacy legislation by defining the term..." to be more concise unless you think including "most importantly" is necessary.

In the UN section, you could possibly re-write the sentence to say: "On 18 December 2013...digital age. This resolution makes reference to the Universal Declaration..."

In the Malaysia section, I think it would be a good idea to re-word the first sentence. From what I understand you are saying that after their independence they developed a legal system based on the English common law. If this is correct I think you could re-word to say: "After their independence from Great Britain in 1957, Malaysia based their legal system primarily on English common law." Also, I would suggest writing "right to privacy" instead of "right of privacy" in the last sentence of that paragraph.

I like how you created the distinction between what personal data and sensitive personal data is. Also, I think that your section about Singapore is very well developed and does not require changes.

In the Taiwan section, I think it would be useful to hyperlink "juridical interpretation."

In the Thailand section, in the first sentence, I don't think you need a comma after authoritarian.

In the Vietnam section, I would leave out the word "instead" in the first sentence. Also, you wrote that there is no definition of what proper purpose means but the sentence after you write that it includes name, profession and so on. I think it would be good to bring it back to the fact that you are once again talking about the protection of personal information rather than leaving the reader as if you are somehow still talking about what proper purpose is. Hope this makes sense. If not let me know!

Overall, your structure is super straight-forward and your work is well-sourced. As I went I just looked at sentence structure because I think your article is there and now it's just time to polish a few minor details. Great job! Also, let me know if I was confusing in any of my suggestions. GibsOfficial (talk) 21:03, 6 April 2018 (UTC)Gibs
 * Hey Gibs, thanks so much! Your suggestions are definitely good ones, and I just went through and completed most of them! --Prizmic (talk) 21:40, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

Peer review
You developed a very precise and scrupulous law related article. From this article, the reader can see that you do a lot of research. In this writing, you directly pointed out the difference of privacy law between countries and also the notable contributions of the country. It is so helpful for lazy readers, like me, or readers who know nothing about this topic can learn about the most important thing of the privacy law in countries you listed. I also found some interesting points from this scholarly law article, such as “APEC created a voluntary Privacy framework.” As I know before, rule was more like a requirement. So finding out the framework was only “voluntary” made understanding the privacy requirement in APEC countries more interesting.

After the reading, I have some suggestions:

1)	Potential hyperlink the “Do not call Registry” under Singapore section. I believe there are a lot of readers having the same concern that we don’t want to receive advertisement call. Although there are few things developed now under the link of “Do not call Registry” for now. Probably some wikipedian will write more in later day. Reader also can be redirected from that link to other countries’ related Act in that page. 2)	I learned from your writing that related laws covered more about personal information privacy and seldom covered physical privacy. I might suggest that you can include one or two sentences in the introduction paragraph of “Privacy laws by countries”, such as “ With the development of new technologies nowadays, the privacy regulations of a lot of countries are more focused on the information flow.”

Overall, you did a great job! After the reading, the reader who is redirected from his Google search will know what kind of information to look for if he needs more information about privacy law. GloriaGu2018 (talk) 09:10, 13 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your suggestions, GloriaGu2018. I'll definitely take them into consideration. I also noticed a lot of privacy law is primarily about information privacy, and the countries I researched seemed not to have physical privacy laws! It's so interesting. Thanks again! --Prizmic (talk) 16:17, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

Hello,

First of all, I'd like to say that I went over the article from the mainspace rather than the one on the sandbox but am writing a bit of my feedback on here (also google drive shared with you). Overall the piece is well-written and that has clear non-biased information backed up by sources in almost all sections. That being said, I did go through most of the sections, not including the ones you might have written to perhaps just make suggestions for the betterment of the overall article. What I did emphasize a lot is using hyperlinks, I think that even if the page does not yet exist that it is important to hyperlink in order for Wikipedia to know what other pages should be created in the future. There were very few minor details that are shared in the doc. Great job! GibsOfficial (talk) 15:59, 20 April 2018 (UTC)Gibs