Talk:Baltimore Lead Paint Study

Medicine Low‑importance

	Medicine portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Medicine, which recommends that medicine-related articles follow the Manual of Style for medicine-related articles and that biomedical information in any article use high-quality medical sources. Please visit the project page for details or ask questions at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine.MedicineWikipedia:WikiProject MedicineTemplate:WikiProject Medicinemedicine articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Untitled[edit]

Shocking! Accounts like this really explain why Hopkins is known as "Johns Frankenstein." I like that you included details about the long term effects of the study in the realm of public health--it's obviously important that lead paint was banned, but the ethical costs of deeming it so are extremely high. It would be interesting to look at the case report from the study itself. Cnpacyna (talk) 12:47, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment[edit]

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Hnguye68. Peer reviewers: BaiCaiXue.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 17:48, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Peer Review[edit]

Hi! I'm also reviewing your article. It's a really interesting case with a lot of ethical issues to explore, so I'm wondering if you could elaborate on them more. For example, at that time did the study have to get the approval of any ethical review board? I think it would be also good to mention that this study fits into a long history of Johns Hopkins treating African American Baltimore residents as research subjects (it wasn't an isolated case) and subsequently why the university has a poor relationship with the local community. In addition, it would be helpful to mention the specific ethical issues with the lead paint study in the overview section (e.g. convincing families to live in homes with lead paint). That way it would be clearer why the study was controversial. Finally, this is a minor criticism but "Upon discovery of the study, the study ended" sounds rather vague. You should probably specify whether the study came to light because the researchers started publishing their results or someone else found out. Hope this helps!BaiCaiXue (talk) 17:08, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! I think you did a really good job with this article! The main thing that could be fixed with this article I think is formatting and dividing up sections. I would try to be more specific and create more sections with different aspects of the issue. I also agree that ethics is a really big part of this and I feel like that concept by itself could be a section too. Also, creating a legacy section I think would be helpful because that focuses on the impact that this study made, which I think is always important to emphasize. Overall, great job! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yennyyang (talk • contribs) 06:51, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]