Talk:Use of restraints on pregnant women

POV tag

This article clearly has a slant toward a certain point of view, that of opposition to the subject. There is a small portion with the opposing view, consisting of two sentences. The title also needs work; it sounds like the title of an essay and not an encyclopedia article. 331dot (talk) 03:18, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

A link has been added to the page to the article on "Incarceration of Women in the United States" and alternative points of view will be added to improve the neutrality of the page. Katcai02 (talk) 17:07, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

I added some links and removed the dead-end tag; there are more that can be added but that's a start. I suspect it's going to be difficult to find much in the way of reliable sources supporting the shackling of pregnant women, but there's no harm in leaving the NPOV tag there till someone else comes along with an opinion. Katcai02, I wouldn't worry about the tags too much; just concentrate on adding neutrally phrased material from good quality sources.

There are two things that I think should be fixed. One is the name; I'm going to move the article to "Use of restraints on pregnant women", which is in line with Wikipedia's article naming standards for capitalization and use of "The". The second is that the article only addresses U.S. practice, though there are some references to international organizations. For example, the "Legal and policy perspectives" section only talks about the U.S. Is this an article about the practice worldwide, or just about the U.S.? If the former, than the section heading needs to be changed to make it clearer to the reader what the scope is; if the latter, then the article should be named something like "Use of restraints on pregnant women in the United States". Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 00:05, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

I think this article does a great job of providing a comprehensive outline of the issues surrounding use of restraints on pregnant women. Great use of statistics and formatting. I would recommend including a few more links to other articles, and simplifying some of the wording. I would also suggest including some more information surrounding different viewpoints, especially in the Policy Perspectives and Legal Perspectives sections. Overall, great article! LHall19 (talk) 01:52, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

This is a very comprehensive and engaging article. The legal perspectives section was very interesting, and I think it could be expanded even further. Great arrangement of the material within the article, and on the whole a solid article!--Hhoover42 (talk) 04:00, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

Speaking specifically about the domestic section of this article I think this section does a fine job of outlining how the United States is handling this situation. My classmate did a good job of drawing attention to the specific legislation each state presents in regard to this issue. The references my classmate chose are relevant and valid. I suggest that the wording of certain sentences change in order to create a better flow. Perhaps instead of “in Pennsylvania, they allow..” say “Pennsylvania allows..” Also, I believe that the phrase “taken the lead” should be removed from the second sentence because it makes the tone less impartial. Also I suggest removing “More broadly speaking” in the last sentence. All in all I found the article informative.Amuzzarelli (talk) 14:54, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

Too narrow of focus

This is linked from Ann Widdecombe, British politician. That indicates that a British perspective - and likely others - exist, but the article leaves it out. It should be expanded to keep the excellent US information, but cover other countries. 46.233.77.186 (talk) 05:29, 5 April 2018 (UTC)