Talk:Constitutive criminology

GA review

 * GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)


 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (references): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):
 * 1) It is broad in its coverage.
 * a (major aspects): b (focused):
 * 1) It follows the neutral point of view policy.
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * 1) It is stable.
 * No edit wars, etc.:
 * 1) It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
 * a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * 1) It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
 * a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:

Peer Review: Cewilds This article contains factual information on the topic and has been kept very broad. The article needs to be sectioned off and the lead needs to be a summary of all information that is covered in the article. Wikipedia is highly against plagiarism so be careful when providing direct quotes from other sources such as "excessive investors investing energy to make a difference on others without those others having the ability to make a difference on them." I would reword this phrase. It would be a good idea to get a few more sources listed and expand on the topic as a whole. Start with the history of the theory and try and research why the theory was brought up in the time it was created. Overall you seem to be on the right path with this, just expand! Cewilds (talk) 06:11, 15 November 2011 (UTC)