User:Kennedy303/Label (sociology)/Dpratchler Peer Review

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing?

Kennedy303


 * Link to draft you're reviewing
 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)
 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)
 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)

Evaluate the drafted changes
LEAD

The lead has been adequately developed and reflects the content added by the student editor. The current lead provides a succinct explanation of the concept of labeling and provides a brief overview of what to expect throughout the article. The current lead – in comparison to the lead of the initial article – is a vast improvement and great addition to the article that will serve as the basis for future revisions/major sections. The introductory sentence of the lead clearly articulates the nature and scope of “labels” and labelling theory in so far as it is relevant to sociology. One potential improvement for the introductory sentence would be to add in a word that recognizes that labels are socially recognized/sanctioned, stressing the importance of pressure and folkways/mores in determining conduct. The lead also provides a cursory overview of the article and the substantive content of its major sections. Wikilinks (links to other articles) are also seamlessly integrated into the lead section, allowing for further reading on tertiary subjects. Furthermore, the sentence (sentence three) that teases out the critical/functional debates is quite strong as it teases out the forthcoming major sections succinctly and clearly. Key theories and theorists that are mentioned in the lead are cited and expanded upon in the major sections and, as such, the lead contains no information that is not present in the article. Overall the lead is concise and is a marked improvement over its predecessor(s), though there is still room for editing sentences to make them more succinct (e.g.try combining the information from the first five sentences in the lead to cut down on the number of overall sentences, you can end up with surprisingly crisp [and more succinct overall] sentences), the lead (and the article more generally) has come an incredibly long way since the start of the term and is a great foundation for the final submission.

CONTENT

The content that has been added to the article is pertinent to the topic of “labels” and labelling theory within sociology. The choice to divide external and internal labelling into separate sections allows for clear reading and, subsequently, a better understanding of labelling before exploring major sections on social theory. The substantive contents of the major sections are up-to-date and are backed up with several citations that range from recent to historical (but nonetheless relevant). There is no missing content or content that is irrelevant to the topic at hand. The article may be strengthened, however, by citing specific studies on labeling (i.e. outcomes of criminal trajectory, see Farrington 2006); the implications of multiple, and possibly conflictory, labels; and other theoretical approaches to labeling. I do want to be cautious when making these recommendations as the current article has grown ten-fold since the beginning of the term, and these edits may fall outside of the scope of the article and, as such, are merely suggestions and should be interpreted as such. The content directly addresses one of Wikipedia's equity gaps as, using academic sources –which are often restricted by paywalls – the article provides access to knowledge that is available - but not readily accessible to the general public. Consequently, the article directly contributes to the development of a population and topic that has historically been underrepresented within the general populace.

TONE AND BALANCE

Overall, the contents of the article draft are neutral and there are no claims that appear particularly biased towards certain positions or perspectives. Furthermore, claims are drawn from a diverse array of works -- by social theorists and researchers -- cited throughout the draft which range several decades. It could be said, however, that peer-reviewed work is over-represented within the article's citations. Wikipedia represents a general encyclopedia and as such, the website favours a diverse array of sources. The article could potentially be improved by adding any credible references to labelling theory from general media (if this exists at all). The nature of sources cited, however, is more symptomatic of the article's topic and it may be that there is not a sufficient range of sources that adequately discuss labels and/or labelling theory. Lastly, the content added does not attempt to persuade the reader in favour of one pa particular position and represents a neutral and informative take on the sociological topic of labelling.

SOURCES AND REFERENCES

The sourcing of the article's contents is perhaps its biggest strength; each statement is supported by a reliable secondary source that reflects the associated claims within the draft. I had the opportunity to skim several of the cited journal articles and found that their contents substantiated the claims made within the article. The sources are thorough as they reflect the available literature on the topic, though the article could potentially be further expanded by including empirical studies and other theoretical perspectives. The majority of the sources cited are extremely current and dated sources are often literature that is central to labelling theory within sociology. The article cites a diverse array of authors – both critical and functionalist – and includes reference to the critical implications of labeling on marginalized individuals, though this could also be expanded upon in further revisions. All of the links (including Wikilinks to other articles) function seamlessly. Overall, the article represents a comprehensive take of the available sources and, with further revision, could likely graduate past a “stub” classification.

ORGANIZATION

The content overall is well-written in that it is clear, comprehensive, and easy to read. I do think the biggest potential improvement would be in the brevity of phrasing, by combining and rephrasing certain sentences the article could become more concise and clear to read. There are a few grammatical errors present (i.e. place instead of placed in the lead), however, I am currently using the sandbox draft for my evaluation and I imagine these will be fixed in further revisions. The substantive contents of the article are also extremely well-organized and this is, by far, one of the draft's biggest strengths.

IMAGES AND MEDIA

There are no images present in the draft and the topic does not lend itself extremely well to photos, let alone ones that adhere to Wikipedia’s copyright policies surrounding images. There are, however, a vast array of photos available through the search function in Wikipedia, and you may be able to find something there to solidify the topic (though you may have to get creative to do so).

OVERALL IMPRESSIONS

The article now, relative to the start of the term, is a demonstrable improvement. The article has increased roughly ten-fold in word count and contains several new major sections that are all well-cited. I would argue that the article is now more complete than any previous iteration(s) and could be on the verge of developing past stub classification. The strengths of the article – which should be built upon in subsequent iterations – include the great citations, articulation of key points and major topics of interest, and the organization of different sections. Furthermore, the writing style and inclusion of links (both Wikilinks and further reading) lend themselves well to the explanation of the topic and help facilitate reading. The article could be improved by revising for brevity and the (potential) inclusion of photos

REFERENCES

Farrington, D. P. (2006). Key longitudinal-experimental studies in criminology. Journal of Experimental Criminology, 2(2), 121-141.