User:TaylorMarcusStudent/sandbox

Plan?
I don't see any DoctorKarpiak (talk) 16:37, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

The plan I think we should add is add all the authors we are currently reading and reading later on to give the readers of the wiki page academic sources for one, as well as other authors insight of how the view public criminology becoming a branch. This would give the reader more knowledge about the field, and will allow them to develop their opinion about it. 164.76.22.220 (talk) 17:33, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

Revised plan
First, we can add some articles we are reading as a template so we can give the reader more info about public criminology and add scholarly opinions so they can form their opinion on the subject. Second, we can re-read the article to find grammatical errors and so to fix them. Thirdly, we are thinking of getting rid of the criminology template on the right side of the page, as well as other templates, and maybe adding another picture of public criminologist. More will be discussed. TaylorMarcusStudent (talk) 16:50, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

Final Plan
So far what we have been doing is editing the public criminology table. Since most of the links were for sociology. Adding new methods into it, adding subfields to it, etc. We are also trying to add a photo or two to the public criminology page itself to give more of a visual representation for the field. Not only that, but we will read through the page with stuff already there, and also what our peers have written, to look for grammatical errors and such.

Comments:
 * Focus mostly on grammatical errors, and making sure links within the page actually work.
 * Then I would focus on the table and adding links to that, because you may be able to take links from the page and add them in the table.

Comments
The bibliography is one thing, but what I'm looking for mostly is a plan. How about, using the talk page comments as a guide, you list 3 things you are going to change, how you're going to change them, and why this change will be helpful. Once you figure that out, the bibliographic part might make more sense (for example, if you are going to do a chart, who or what publications, will be in it?) DoctorKarpiak (talk) 16:37, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

Article Evaluation:
Article Name: Public Criminology


 * Is everything in the article relevant to the article topic?: Yes, nothing goes off topic of Public Criminology. They talk about the need for it, what it means, historical background for it. Even criticisms against Public Criminology to show the other side of it.
 * Is there anything that distracted you?: No, nothing did.
 * Is any information out of date?: Nope, they use historical data and present data to support and not support their cause.
 * Is anything missing that could be added?: More data on the authors Uggen and Inderbitzin, they knew a lot.
 * What else could be improved?: Have grammatical errors that need fixing, sentence structure could be improved, etc.
 * Is the article neutral?: I'd say so, since they gave support and criticisms for it, however, one of the Sub-headers: The Need for Public Criminology, Shows a bias opinion that we do need this branch, giving an opinion to sway the reader towards acceptance of it.
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?: None that I can see. They never once said, "you should agree with us and or sway towards Public Criminology."
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?: Think some of the historical background on people who created it or advocated it could be represented more, talked about more.
 * Check a few citations. Do the links work?: Yes, they do work.
 * Does the source support the claims in the article?: Seems in the talk page that some of the sources need to be removed and they are in the words of the edit, "conflict of interest."
 * Is each fact referenced with an appropriate, reliable reference?: I believe for the most part yes, however some more sources could have been referenced in the page, as on the top of the page claims some of it may not be original work.
 * Where does the information come from?:
 * Are these neutral sources?: Yes and no. Uggen, and Christopher state in their journal that this branch isn't for everyone, however, they never critique Public Criminology themselves, but that doesn't really make that source not neutral.
 * If biased, is that bias noted?: Yes.
 * Talk Page
 * What kinds of conversations, if any, are going on behind the scenes about how to represent this topic?: One person says that wiki needs to help edit this whole page. Since a lot of it needs revision.
 * How is the article rated?: The one editor wouldn't rate this page too high since he claims a lot of this article needs to be revised in many ways. Says it isn't really acceptable for an encyclopedia.
 * Is it a part of any WikiProjects?: Yes it is.
 * How does the way Wikipedia discusses this topic differ from the way we've talked about it in class?: It uses more historical background than we have read so far or talked about so far in class.