User talk:Prizmic/sandbox

Gloria's peer review
Your additions to the privacy law page are very helpful and comprehensive in the areas that you covered, especially the section on countries in ASEAN. Readers can esasily get an overview of the region's privacy laws situation by reading your additions. This is the type of information that Wikipedia desired, which gives reader an overview on the new stuff in a short time.

I recommend maybe combining the sections on Council of Europe and EU together. While I understand that they are two separate organizations, they shared many similar laws and regulations, as 28 of the nations in Council of Europe is in the EU. Maybe you can have a European heading paralleling with APEC, with the two organizations（council of Europe + European Union) under it.

GloriaGu2018 (talk) 05:43, 23 March 2018 (UTC)


 * Thank you, GloriaGu2018. I thought about whether I should differentiate between Council of Europe and the EU. I'm still deciding whether I will organize the international section this way. I will definitely take your suggestions into account, thank you! --Prizmic (talk) 18:57, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

Gabby's Peer Review
A few minor details, in your first sentence under APEC you write "personal information between the countries," which countries are these or perhaps take out "the" to be more general? In the section about Mayalasia when you talk Personal Data Protection Act you wrote that it distinguishes between "personal data and sensitive personal data," do you think it might be important to explain the differences or is it not too important to the overall point being made? (just a thought).

I believe that your first section is really well-written, it provides the information needed to develop an understanding of international legal standards. I like how you already began including hyperlinks to other Wikipedia pages. Also, the fact that you include other common law examples after Malaysia and additional Acts under the Singapore section is super helpful.

Overall, I think your draft is well-written overall and seems to be straightforward with a clear structure. You used a plethora of sources backing up your information and presented neutral content. According to the Wikipedia training, this means that you are clearly following the guide to what makes a good page.

As always, keep up the good work! If you have any questions about a certain section feel free to reach out.

GibsOfficial (talk) 18:48, 23 March 2018 (UTC)Gabby
 * Thanks for the review, Gibs. I agree I should definitely go back and edit some grammar/syntax. I think that I will probably go through everything again and make sure what I'm saying is more detailed and specific. Thanks! --Prizmic (talk) 18:58, 23 March 2018 (UTC)