User talk:God6181996/sandbox

Peer Review
I am very impressed that you were able to look through multiple different sources and find specific sections of the Wikipedia article in them. This can be difficult, time-consuming work so this shows that you are being a very diligent and careful editor. That being said, your draft does a very good job of identifying plagiarism and making sure information is properly cited through finding the correct sources (correctly citing Batchelor instead of the original editor’s false citation of Obenberger in the “deception” section) and removing unnecessary citations (deleting the two additional references in the “deception” section that did not contain any of the information written in that section). The only thing that I would suggest is after identifying areas of direct plagiarism, to then paraphrase that information in your own words. This is an improvement because then readers won’t be looking at different pieces of information that was directly copied from multiple different sources that may not flow nicely together. Instead, they will be reading something more concise and understandable. This is also the most important change you can make to your article because then the information presented will not be unusable directly plagiarized content but a concise paraphrase instead.

Also, referencing what Wikipedia says are the 5 elements of a good article, it seems that your article covers many of those elements. It has a clear lead section, structure, and balanced content. After your edits, it also has reliable sources. The last element to check would be to make sure the content is neutral. I looked through the article and it seemed neutral to me but that may be something that you also want to look for as well.

Mnv14 (talk) 02:49, 1 April 2018 (UTC) (I am actually posting this on March 31 at 10:50pm but Wikipedia is not putting the correct time). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mnv14 (talk • contribs) 02:51, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

Peer Review
1. It's definitely impressive that you are looking at analyzing specific sections of the article, looking for plagiarism or incorrect sources. This is a task that requires meticulous attention to detail, and you've done a fine job - the first Obenberger source itself was an indication of plagiarism. That being said, just be careful to make note of when there is clear copying and pasting, as was shown in a couple instances, and a paraphrasing of a source. Even paraphrasing can sometimes be an indication of plagiarism.

2. The only changes I would say to make are to focus on not only catching instances of plagiarism but to correct sources along the way, which you did when analyzing the last section on the use of drugs. Updating any sources that are outdated or dead links is also important because that can lead to being able to thoroughly check if those sections were plagiarized as well. Tracking down correct sources is a daunting task, but you managed to do well so far. Definitely, as Professor Akers mentioned, using the Rutgers Library Database will help if you search with correct Boolean phrases - it should easily help you find any missing sources. Another good place to look would be Google Scholar. A lot of times, that is good for helping find the article - then you can go back to the Rutgers Library Database to get access to the article once you have the title.

3. I would say the most important thing to do for the article is take the original article section by section. The best place to start, personally, would be with the current sources already cited in the article. Checking to see if the links themselves work firstly is a good first step because this way you can easily cross-reference the sections cited with those links that do work. Another thing would be to see if all the sources cited are actual sources, especially if no links are provided. Honestly, as long as you have a systematic approach to divide and conquer analyzing the article, you will produce a great final product. Lastly, if at all possible, try and see if you can correct the paraphrased sections of the original article - this may be a bit too much, as it will take time to comb through for plagiarism first. But if you can edit even a portion of the sections that may be plagiarized, this would go a long way in helping readers of the article get accurate information. Other than that, again, props to being able to pull off such a task - well done!

Rheatata (talk) 00:51, 2 April 2018 (UTC)


 * NOTE: I don't know why it marked with a UTC timestamp, but I posted this at 8:51 PM, 1 April 2018 (EST)

Diego's Peer Review
Your analysis was impressively thorough. It's surprising that such an article on such a high-profile topic has so many plagiarized sections, so it's important that you went through this as diligently as you did. Even though the information on interrogation IS somewhat accurate and a source of basic information, this article in its current state doesn't belong on Wikipedia due to the amount of plagiarism. Something I'd work on for this article is adding more relevant examples for the various forms of interrogation. AFor example, there is a disproportionately high amount of information for torture compared to the other forms (probably for good reason, considering torture IS the most controversial form of interrogation), but some forms have real-life examples listed and others don't (Deception has a link to an actual case, while Good-cop-bad-cop doesn't). In addition to fixing the various irrelevant links throughout the article, I would re-review the credibility of the source globalsecurity.org. Their about section says that they aren't affiliated with any actual credible organizations, and have nothing proving their credibility as a good source of information. Their mission statement even says "[this website] should not be viewed as an exhaustive, "last-word" source for critical applications (such as those requiring legally defensible information)." Another small thing to note in the article: the Pride-and-ego down section is copy pasted straight from the main article on Pride-and-ego (unclear to me if this counts as plagiarism since it's from another article). Pride-and-ego is also missing the "up" version of the interrogation form. Overall, the most important thing would be improving the article's accuracy by providing more real life examples, and thus making the information more consistent. Accomplishing this would likely also require a rewrite of any of the sections that are plagiarized, killing two birds with one stone. Great work! :)

Dec150 (talk) 02:42, 2 April 2018 (UTC) (not sure why it says UTC but I'm posting at 10:42 PM 1 April)