User talk:Ccarson2/Distinction (sociology)

Peer Evaluation
I'd like the first preface this by stating that I am not a sociologist. Honestly, sociology has always confused me and I've never been able to fully understand it. So, If I stayed within this review that I'm confused about something it's entirely possible it's not because of something you wrote but it's because of my inability to understand sociology fully. In the same way that an academic article is written for a specialized audience, I am not the specialized audience an article like this is written for.

I think the article does a good job of breaking down what "distinction" can mean when applied to different fields. The easiest part of the article for someone like me to understand was the military distinction part. It's obvious to me that we draw distinctions between the police and the military and their respective roles, so part of the article was clear to me. It might be useful to further expand on that section, and describe more closely how the roles are distinct from each other.

In cultural section of the article, I was confused by many things that I assume I just don't understand. For example I do not know what cultural capital is, perhaps if I did the section of the article would be easier for me to understand. That being said, take this paragraph with a larger grain of salt. I think what this section of the article was describing was how the physical appearance and beauty of an object affects its cultural value. I also think you included the point about that study, that studied social standing in correlation with physical beauty, to further reinforce that point. I wasn't exactly sure how that relates back to this idea of cultural distinction. Again, this might be just because I'm a Layman, but maybe you could include some further connecting point that demonstrates this.

I was most confused about the law section of the article. I have no idea what a socio-scholar is, so I don't understand how it relates to law. I do not know what a "law community" is (is it a group of lawyers? The judges? Again I don't know anything about this, so take this with a grain of salt.) Was this section describing an ethics oversight committee? Honestly, I was at a complete loss.

Lastly, I was confused about the name "distinction" itself. Is the "distinction" in sociology different from conventional use of the word, or is it the same? Perhaps you could make some small change to the summary part of the article to explain this. And it would be useful for someone like me who doesn't have any exposure to the field of sociology.

I think the singular most important thing you could do to improve this article for someone like me who knows next to nothing about sociology, is to use the hyperlink system so that you could redirect to other pages on Wikipedia to further explain what each individual thing you mentioned really is. You just need to highlight one word and hit Ctrl + K, in Wikipedia will open a new window where you can change the written word into a link to another page on Wikipedia. By including those links, I think you'll make your article less of a stand-alone piece and more of an additive part in the web of Wikipedia. CJMcKenna98 (talk) 09:44, 28 September 2020 (UTC)