Talk:Patient and mortuary neglect
|Patient and mortuary neglect received a peer review by Wikipedia editors, which is now archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article.|
|This page was nominated for deletion on 20 March 2008. The result of the discussion was keep and improve.|
|This article was the subject of an educational assignment that ended on 21 March 2008. Further details are available here.|
I like the idea of this article and its potential, but there is room for improvement. For instance, with the titles following "types of mortuary neglect", either more information needs to be added (as they seem so short and not supported well enough to stand on their own) or they should be merged. The two cases you reference could be put together instead and supported by other similar cases dealing with mort. neglect. Or perhaps you could maybe add statistical analysis highlighting the levels of reported neglect. Just throwing out suggestions, but keep up the great work! Mari2111 (talk) 06:41, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
After reading the article I don't feel it needs to be deleted or anything. It just needs someone to sit down and re-structure it. Pictures on this article would help grab the reader's attention. People need to see what mortuary neglect looks like. More detail on the cases would also help improve the article. (Orb80cool (talk) 23:32, 17 April 2008 (UTC))
I have to disagree with that, I think that this article easily gets the readers attention because of the subject. However, I do think that if you adding pictures could help. I also believe if you describe a particular case with just a bit more detail could really help you out.(June21st86 (talk) 22:33, 17 April 2008 (UTC))
The information was good but the format does not grab the readers attention and is not very extensive. With this topic you could have added some cool pictures and realy made it a cool forensic site. I would add a little to each paragraph and get some cool pictures to liven it up a bit. --Ctmfc (talk) 17:36, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
This article is somewhat interesting but does not keep me wanting to read more. maybe if you guys added pictures and improved your paragraphs. And I believe that infestation of maggots on humans is called myasis. that can help in the sense of sounding more "forensic". Agbetty (talk) 12:47, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
This is a great article; however, the writing, I feel is not on a college level. My advice would be to go back over the article and make some major adjustments with sentence structure and word choice. Read other articles and see how they grammar adn word choice. I think that might help little bit if you are having trouble with changing things around.megalatta (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 01:58, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
From a reader's perspective I would recommend finding or making a page with information on all 50 states and then link to just that page. The big white block in the middle of the article isn't too appealing. I also noticed a lack of wikipedia hyperlinks. You would be surprised how much character a few wikipedia hyperlinks add to a page in addition to the feeling of relevance your topic has to others. I look forward to seeing where this goes. Oh and in an episode of HBO's Six Feet Under I remember this occurring (granted that it was accidental). If you find it let me know, our group is doing Forensic entomology and society which includes TV shows and we could link to each others pages.Quatrevingtsix (talk) 03:37, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
Ok, guys...make sure you get this page updated as soon as possible, or it will be deleted. Remember how I said not to put up just one paragraph at a time? This is why. Get this done!ABrundage, Texas A&M University (talk) 22:37, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
So the hyperlink that I added for the violations summary is not linking the entire address because of the space in between "SUMMARY" and "OF". When I try to use the hyperlink tool it only shows the "OF VIOLATIONS FY 2007.pdf" as the link. Does anyone know anyway that I could overcome that? Wateka (talk) 17:07, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
- I fixed it -- you need to use underscores in place of spaces, and single square brackets instead of pointy ones. Also note that blogs (the first two refs) are not reliable sources per WP:RS. – ukexpat (talk) 18:54, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
- The problem is the link now points to an invalid page. The address contains the spaces, and now with the underscores it won't work. Thanks though for the heads up on the bad references. I'll try to find some acceptable ones. Wateka (talk) 20:52, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
First, there are three fields of entomology: urban, stored products, and medicolegal. I believe mortuary neglect falls under urban entomology, not medicolegal (which is where forensic entomology falls). I am not sure that the article convinced me of how this falls under Forensic entomology. The subheading about the types of mortuary neglect and the law was a little confusing. I suggest making separate headings: one for the types of neglect and one for cases of neglect or make the cases subheadings of the type of neglect.Garza j e (talk) 21:00, 30 March 2008 (UTC) garza_j_e —Preceding comment was added at 23:44, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
- Forensic entomology is simply the use of insect evidence in legal proceedings, and that covers wide range of topics.
Technically, there are three areas of forensic entomology: urban, stored product and medicolegal. The type of case tells us which area it falls into. Mortuary neglect is falls under the subject of forensic entomology because it has to do with legal proceedings (neglect) but is not a crime involving living humans (which is medicolegal) so it falls into the urban forensic entomology category. ABrundage, Texas A&M University (talk) 20:51, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
Just an idea, under "Case studies" (I believe that was the name of the section..) refer to our book for the course. I'm pretty sure that there are a few mortuary neglect cases included in it. If no one in your group has one, I'd be willing to let you borrow mine! Hope this helps! Lindseyjean11 (talk) 16:30, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
You might want to retitle your "Cases" section something like History. I don't see how the information written under that heading deals specifically with particular cases. Also, with a little more information that section would make a great introduction! Great article, keep up the good work! --Moosenik (talk) 21:45, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
- Your article does not contain a lead section. This goes at the top of the page and provides a general overview of what you are about to say.
- Add more internal wiki links on words such as embalming, decomposition, forensic.
- Under the heading Types of mortuary neglect and the law, the sub-topics “Washington v. John T. Rhines Co.” and “Christensen v. Superior Court of Los Angeles Count” are out of place. These may need their own section, or be moved to the bottom heading Cases.
- Also, some of the sub-sections under Types of mortuary neglect and the law are not well explained. I had to read these a few times to understand what you are talking about. Try adding some real world examples to make the topics more interesting.
- One last thing, I suggest moving the Cases heading above the links to state laws. It gets lost at the bottom of the article after the exhausting list of states.
- BY the way, this article is REALLY interesting. I really would like to read more real-life examples of the types of abuse that occurs.--Amandamartinez06 (talk) 03:21, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
Just some thoughts. When you talk about how neglect could cause flesh flies to inhabit the body a like to Insect indicatiors of abuse and neglect could help your page. Any pictures of improper embalming could help the reader to see what that would be like with a family member in an open-casket. You talk about a 15 step process the NFDA takes but you do not really tell what those steps are. That might be something to think about. Also, the article jumps back and forth on neglect of morgues and hospitals. Sometimes this can make it hard to follow. Crosenbalm (talk) 15:22, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
I personally love this topic, i think it can stand alone if you create enough relative links to entomology or Law. more links to other Forensic web pages would help complete this article. awesome work. --heartbreaker5785 (talk)
Can you give me examples of specific cases that highlight different cases of neglect. I noticed that you included two but there are some instances that do not have any specific cases to back up that type of neglect. I think if you researched some more about that it would add some evidence to your claims and make your statements more valid and applicable. Just some things to consider. Good work, this is an interesting and sad topic. (Lamanda14 (talk) 21:02, 13 April 2008 (UTC))
This is a really good topic, but it seems like there is not much information on it in the paper. Using more examples and going into more detail would probably be a good idea, and could help with the lenth. There is only about one sentence under each bolded topic so elaborating on those would probably help with the length also. Using more links to other pages would be a good idea too. (Medillar (talk) 22:22, 14 April 2008 (UTC))
This topic is very interesting but it seems that you have a list of references and have not cited any in you article. I think you need to cite your references so to avoid deletion. I also think expansion of the one line sentences would help the reader better understand the topic--Escaladebball29 (talk) 03:39, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
Good topic but I believe some good examples of mortuary neglect and patient neglect are out there. For example I was a EMT for a while and I have seen patient neglect in retirement homes during patient transports. Often the telltale signs are bedsores due to lack of physical movement and rotaional exercises to maintain blood circulation and mobility of limbs. Often neglect will cause this as well as the patient laying in their waste resulting in skin breakdown from uria.Txdevine1 (talk) 03:46, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
Interesing article, it's short and too the point but I have a few suggestions. Firstly, there's a few sentences that need restructuring, they don't flow very well. Secondly, the references and external links should be moved to the bottom of the article below state policies. That's pretty much it, good luck! Greg09Ag (talk) 23:32, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
The article is interesting, but I do have a few suggestions to help improve it. It seems a little too brief. There are a lot of subheadings with only one or two lines of text with them in the types of mortuary neglect section. It could use more examples or some elaboration on the descriptions of the types of mortuary neglect and how they are affected by law. Also, are there any more cases that could be included? When I read the article, I didn't see any in text citations. Try to include the references in the article where they are referenced. Galaga180 (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 03:06, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
The article is interesting but I do have some suggestions. Under the "Definition" section, you mentioned a major and minor difference. The major difference was clearly stated but what was the minor difference? Also, under "Types of Mortuary Neglect...", you might want to indent the court cases to distinguish them from the types of neglect. Under the "Cases" section, the information seemed to cover the history of embalming instead of any actual cases. I suggest either renaming the section or adding in actual cases. Other than that, good article. It just needs some more information and examples. Hando09 (talk) 05:48, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
Maybe you could talk about how cockroaches are used to determine mortuary neglect. As in how after the skin begins drying out the bites of cockroaches leave marks that look like burns.Horsenerd09 (talk) 06:18, 16 April 2008 (UTC)horsenerd09
seemed kind of vague on how the actual neglect happens and the process that the neglected go through. It still covered interesting points and gave me an insight on the topic.Cellimj (talk) 21:14, 16 April 2008 (UTC)§ cellimj
I feel like this article has a lot of potential because it is a unique topic. However, I feel like it is not really detailed enough to capture the reader's attention and doesn't really go in depth on anything. I think you could find some specific cases that you could elaborate on a little more, we even talked about at least one in class. Also, there isn't an introduction. You guys could write a really catchy intro that could spark attention, and overall outline what you talk about in the article. Good job so far, but I feel like it could use some more work to reach full potential. Kjw15 (talk) 05:49, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
Hello! I realize this assignment wa alot of work and there was alot of ground to cover. Your paper was over patient and mortuary neglect. You had a section about the different types of mortuary neglect and the laws but not a section for patient neglect. I definately think this is an interesting topic and you have lots you can expand on. -Kels03218:07, 17 April 2008 (UTC)Kels032 (talk)
This is an interesting subject. I noticed that the main focus of the article was mortuary neglect without much mention paid to patient neglect. Since the title states that patient and mortuary neglect will be discussed, it would probably be good to bulk up on information about patient neglect. Also, in the Definition section, the minor difference between patient and mortuary neglect is not made obvious. In the first sentence under 'Types of mortuary neglect and the law', I think "of a corpse" should be changed to "on a corpse". Also, this section seems a little bare. Are there any more legal cases that could be added to this section? In the Cases section, it would be nice to include several examples of the type of neglect that took place and the consequences faced for this neglect. I also think that more links throughout the article would make it look better. Hope these suggestions help. Good luck! --Kmcneese (talk) 19:43, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
There is a lot of information on this topic and I was somewhat surprised to see such little information. Patient and mortuary neglect falls under urban entomology correct? I noticed that some of the words could have been defined so that readers who are not quite familiar with this topic will have a better understanding of it. Elaboration is really needed for this article but too much wordiness can also hurt. Pns2010 (talk) 23:34, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
This article seems to just be a lot of definitions. I feel you should elaborate a lot more. I know there are tons of cases about this but for some reason we only hear of one. Please go more in depth and explain your topics more. Love the topic just not enough information. Jword 09 (talk) 01:48, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
This topic could be extremely interesting. The major problem right now is still its composition. Parts of the article sound like you're having a casual conversation with the reader. That's not precisely a bad thing, but it just needs to be put in Encyclopedia format. Also, the wording gets a tad awkward in areas. A good topic choice though, with alot of potential. --Tipitow88 (talk) 05:46, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
The topic you chose is an interesting one, but major modifications are in order. For starters, may I suggest maybe making your "DEFINITION" section your introduction? By defining neglect and actually elaborating between mortuary and patient neglect, you've done a pretty good job of encompassing the primary focus of this paper, while giving the reader a hint of what's coming. So, give it some thought...
Also, when you list the different types of mortuary neglect, the big, bold headings are completely unecessary. I realize that you're only trying to organize the article, but you don't really have enough information under each heading to make it okay for them to stand alone. You're better off just mentioning all the different types, briefly defining each, and including those real-life examples in one or two paragraphs.
For those specific cases you mentioned, maybe you could add another section named "Case Studies" or "Court Cases" or something in that area. You could include the two you already have, and look for cases that pertain to each of the other types. Doing this in a separate section allows you to go more in-depth, and could also add some length to your article.
I really hope your page doesn't get deleted. I wouldn't want that for anyone. I know that you guys have put quite a bit of research into this topic, and I appreciate how concise you're being in the delivery of your information, but it just seems very minimal at this point. This is a really interesting and applicable topic, there has to be more you can bring to the article. Perhaps expand upon court cases where entomology was used to determine the extent of patient or mortuary neglect. Or maybe aside from court cases, discuss further the effects that forensic entomology has with respect to patient and mortuary neglect. This is a great topic, but the article just seems a little slim for now. Keep up the good work! --Brokenice928 (talk) 16:30, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
Overall good article. I felt like the subheadings with the different kinds of neglect were awkward since each only contained one or maybe two sentences. It would be good if you expanded on the types of neglect and maybe included some examples. Also, there was one part where you said "like the case of Roy Williams" and unless you had mentioned him earlier in the article (which I looked again and didn't see), I have no idea who that is and what that case is about. You might add a description behind that, and explain what he was (or wasn't) doing, or link it to something that would give me a better idea. Annemarye (talk) 17:36, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
I have a few suggestions. This is a very interesting topic and can have the potential of being a very good article with more information. In the sentence "When a mortuary fails to preserve a body correctly, it could also be considered neglect because of the consequences" could you elaborate a little? What are the consequences? Also, under the sections "Fencing Stolen Organs", "Commingling of Ashes", and "Unauthorized disposal" I think there should be more information given than just 1-2 sentences per category. Otherwise, combine all 3 into one general category. Also, in the Christensen case there are no citations- you might want to cite that since it is a specific case. Also consider moving that highlighted case to under your section that says "Cases"- it would be more appropriate there. Laylou11 (talk) 20:28, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
This article has some very good points and with a little help would be great. Starting with a definition gives the reader a great idea of what the paper is going to be about and draws you in to the article. I also thought that adding links to state policies was a smart way of giving additional information. When describing the types of neglect, you might want to expand on each section to give the reader more of an idea of what you are describing. You also might want to put Washington v John T. Rhines Co. as a subsection under improper embalming since it describes a case of improper embalming, or moved to the “Cases” section. I was also confused on the case of Roy Williams under “Current Trends”. I didn’t see anything preceding the case to describe what it was about. Maybe talk about what this case was and how it relates to neglect. Other than that, I think that this article was well written! JessicaD128 (talk) 18:59, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
This article has a solid foundation that could use a little more elaboration. I notice ya'll still haven't added pictures, and I really do think that would be very effective. I'd like to see a bit more influence on the entomology aspects of it, and maybe some links to other pages (blow-flies, cockroaches, etc.). Your one-sentence summaries are very good, but if you could flesh them out a little (no pun intended), that would help. Also, there was a major mortuary neglect case in Georgia a few years ago where dozens of bodies were left to rot in the woods and their cremation techs were mixing in quick-dry cement to make the ashes look better; a link to that would be cool if you could find it.Jablan1 (talk) 21:11, 17 April 2008 (UTC)Jablan1
One suggestion I have is to have more external links. I only noticed two but I think you could add more and I think that would really improve your article. I also think an introduction before the contents section would help. Finally I think you could really go into quite a bit more detail. It is a very interesting topic that I don't think many people really think about so this could be a great article with a little more detail. Hietpas08 (talk) 21:51, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
The article definitely has potential, but it is lacking some things that Wikipedia requires in order to be a reputable article. You have sources which is good, but none of them are referenced to in your article. One section I would like to see more of is the “Trends” section. Why would a lazy eye (spelling need correction: amblyopia) predispose a body for mortuary neglect? Wudntulyk2no (talk) 00:07, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
This article seems to be nothing more than definitions of terms associated with mortuary neglect, and not much elaboration. I know there are alot of cases of this, even in the news as of late, and yet we are only told about one case. The definitions need to be expanded to explain the individual topics more. Great topic, but just not enough information.Bigjbang79 (talk) 00:32, 18 April 2008 (UTC)bigbang79
This article was very imformative but it needs to have pictures. It dosn't catch the reader's eye as an interesting article. I also feel that it needs to have a little bit more details. It's good that it's clear and concise but it needs to be more detailed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Melgo87 (talk • contribs) 01:37, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
Through out the article, there are a lot of subheadings that are followed by a sentence or two. Especially under "Types of Mortuary Neglect and the Law." There are several subheadings that don't contain enough information to make them into it's own section. If possible, I would merge some of the subheading that don't contain a lot of information, and possibly just making them into paragraphs without a heading. Also, in the second paragraph under "Cases," you mention the case of Roy Williams, but didn't elaborate on it, or mention it anywhere else in the article. Maybe you can explain what happened in that case, and what was settled. Other than that, I think the artcle is great, it contains a lot of interesting information. Good Job!!!! (Mexicanspaniard1 (talk) 02:31, 18 April 2008 (UTC))
Interesting topic! Don't forget to site your references if the definition for neglect wasn't your own. Also, you mentioned there are consequences if mortuary neglect failes to preserve a body correctly. What kinds of consequences? Good stuff on "mortuary neglect and the law" but it might flow better if you created two seperate titles for it..one for types and one for the law and then the cases you mentioned could be the sub titles. That way you could move the Ossining, NY case to there and rename "cases" to "history" so its all in one place. You might also want to link some words to other wiki pages like forensic entomology. Page is really well done. Mcgi133 (talk) 04:16, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
The subtopics under the types of mortuary neglect and the law contain very little information. They look like a list of definitions and examples of cases put together. You might want to try to reorganize that section by adding more information for each type of neglect: improper embalming, fencing stolen organs, etc. A case relating to each of those would greatly improve that section. When you said that there are certain standards that the morgues have to meet, you may want to list some general standards that the different states have in common. This topic is an interesting one, but I don't know how difficult it was for you guys to find information about it. Overall, I think you did a good job covering the different aspects that are involved under this topic, but more in depth information regarding those aspects would really improve this article. Best js 2007 (talk) 14:55, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
I liked the article, but there were a few parts of it that seemed awkard about it. Some of the sentences, such as 'Usually in nursing homes or in home-assisted living, neglect would consist of patients being left laying in their own urine and/or feces, which could, in turn, possibly attract flesh flies and lead to maggot infestation.', just didn't feel right. I had to read the sentence several times to completely make sense of it. It might sound better if you didn't start with usually, and instead incorporated it into the middle of the sentence. Also, the whole article seemed choppy because of the very short paragraphs. Maybe it would be better to merge them where possible, making your article more fluent.--Dmhenry1216 (talk) 16:07, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
I think it’s a good topic, but the writing doesn’t flow correctly you should consider revising. The cases you present need to have more relevance to entomology as far as the class project is concerned. Micha259 (talk) 16:45, 18 April 2008 (UTC)