User:Graceward601/Public criminology/Corynneemmerson Peer Review

Peer review
This is where you will complete your peer review exercise. Please use the following template to fill out your review.

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing? (Graceward601)
 * Link to draft you're reviewing: User:Graceward601/sandbox

Lead
Guiding questions:


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer? Yes, the lead has been edited by my peer.
 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic? She changed the lead to try and more concisely describe public criminology, but after looking back at the source, it looks as if she just used the definition of just plain "criminology." Thus, it is a little on clear on what sets public criminology apart.
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections? The article's major sections seem slightly irrelevant to mention early on since it is such a short article.
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? While the lead does go into more detail about the sections in the article, I do think that the original definition of public criminology is slightly better.
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? In the original article, I find it odd that they start discussing the views of proponents and the issues with it so early in the article? Is this normal?

Lead evaluation
The lead could still use a little work. I still struggle to understand what sets public criminology apart.

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic? The content added seems to be relevant to the source.
 * Is the content added up-to-date? The content added is mostly historical, so it is up to date. The sources are also fairly new, so this is going to be relevant information.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? In the chuck that you are adding about he Home Office Research Unit and the Cambridge Institute of Criminology, I feel like you need the dates of when they were established to bring validity to the statements. You may want to add some links to other wikipedia articles for clarification. For example, I have no clue what an actuarial scientist is. You should also put the sources at the bottom of the article in numerical order, just for organization sake. I also think the current criticism section in pretty heavy in comparison to the other sections, so I think more needs to be added to balance that out.

Content evaluation
The content added seems relevant. It still could use some more additions though.

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral? There are parts of the added sections that are written from an American perspective by using words like "overseas" for example. There doesn't seem to be a global aspect in many parts of the article, which is important for a public wiki information website like wikipedia.
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? "They use public criminology to advocate for the rehabilitation of offenders rather than the incarceration of them, prevent crime, and make the justice system so it is more efficient and ethical" This statement is starting to sound a little subjective when you use words like "ethical." It sounds like you are encouraging this method over previous methods used in the judicial system.
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? The added segments are a little heavy on the American perspective.
 * Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another? Overall, this isn't a super political article, but as I said earlier the use of words with distinctly positive connotations can give it a little bit of a persuasive feel.

Tone and balance evaluation
Overall, I'd just read back through and make sure everything is written in a global perspective and try and take out any subjective language.

Sources and References
Guiding questions:


 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? All the added information only has one source per thought. There aren't any secondary sources from what I can see.
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? The sources seem to be mostly academic articles that are pretty specific to the topic of public criminology.
 * Are the sources current? All the sources seem to be current (well created within the past 10ish years)
 * Check a few links. Do they work? The links seem to be working fine.

Sources and references evaluation
The sources seem like they are reliable, but it wouldn't hurt to add some secondary sources to the content moving forward.

Organization
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? Some sentences are a little bit wordy and could benefit from being made more concise. ex. "As public criminology is seen as a way of crime prevention, classroom education, conferences for academic purposes, public lectures, government hearings, newspapers, radio and television broadcasting and press releases are all versions of the concept"
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors? 1) Public criminologist[s] focus on reshape... 2)I also believe that the citations go after the period, not before. 3)" They wrote Public Criminology, which discusses who we are, our discipline, and how we impact each other" I don't think we are supposed to use words like "I" or "we" in this article.
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? The information being added all seems relevant, I just struggle to understand where it is being added based on how the sandbox is currently set up. If possible, try to clarify which sentence the part that you're adding is coming into. "After "While the term 'public criminology'...", [insert sentence here]", for example.

Organization evaluation
The added content seems to fit in well with what you have, but your writing could be made more concise and some minor grammar errors need to be fixed.

Images and Media
Guiding questions: If your peer added images or media NOT APPLICABLE


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic? NOT APPLICABLE
 * Are images well-captioned? NOT APPLICABLE
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations? NOT APPLICABLE
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way? NOT APPLICABLE

For New Articles Only
If the draft you're reviewing is a new article, consider the following in addition to the above.


 * Does the article meet Wikipedia's Notability requirements - i.e. Is the article supported by 2-3 reliable secondary sources independent of the subject? NOT APPLICABLE
 * How exhaustive is the list of sources? Does it accurately represent all available literature on the subject? NOT APPLICABLE
 * Does the article follow the patterns of other similar articles - i.e. contain any necessary infoboxes, section headings, and any other features contained within similar articles? NOT APPLICABLE
 * Does the article link to other articles so it is more discoverable? NOT APPLICABLE

Overall impressions
Guiding questions:


 * Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete? NOT APPLICABLE
 * What are the strengths of the content added? NOT APPLICABLE
 * How can the content added be improved? NOT APPLICABLE