Wikipedia:Wiki Ed/Eastern Michigan University/CRM447W Senior Seminar in Criminology (Winter 2019)/Assignment3b

Article Name w/link

 * Is everything in the article relevant to the article topic? Is there anything that distracted you?
 * Is any information out of date? Is anything missing that could be added?
 * What else could be improved?
 * Is the article neutral? Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
 * Check a few citations. Do the links work? Does the source support the claims in the article?
 * Is each fact referenced with an appropriate, reliable reference? Where does the information come from? Are these neutral sources? If biased, is that bias noted?
 * Talk Page
 * What kinds of conversations, if any, are going on behind the scenes about how to represent this topic?
 * How is the article rated? Is it a part of any WikiProjects?
 * How does the way Wikipedia discusses this topic differ from the way we've talked about it in class?

[|Juvenile Delinquency]
1. No, the article was clear about the points that was discussed.
 * Is everything in the article relevant to the article topic? Is there anything that distracted you?

2. A few of the studies are out of date.
 * Is any information out of date? Is anything missing that could be added?

3. Use studies that are up to date.
 * What else could be improved?

4. The article is neutral for the most part. I did not see any claims that are biased.
 * Is the article neutral? Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?

5. No there are not.
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?

6. Yes, the links work and support the claims in the article.
 * Check a few citations. Do the links work? Does the source support the claims in the article?

7. Yes, each fact was referenced, the sources are neutral.
 * Is each fact referenced with an appropriate, reliable reference? Where does the information come from? Are these neutral sources? If biased, is that bias noted?

1. Questions about what kind of theories would apply.
 * Talk Page
 * What kinds of conversations, if any, are going on behind the scenes about how to represent this topic?

2. It is part of WikiProject Psychology, WikiProject Crime, WikiProject Sociology, and WikiProject Correction and Detention Facilities.
 * How is the article rated? Is it a part of any WikiProjects?

3. The article brings up points about risk factors, theories, and crime theories.
 * How does the way Wikipedia discusses this topic differ from the way we've talked about it in class?

Tbyrd10 16:12, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

Prison
1. Yes, everything in the 'Prisons' article is related to the topic 100%. There was not anything that caught me off guard, mainly because prison is such a talked about topic. 2. The information that is out of date that I noticed was the prison population section. The numbers are from early 2012 and are different from todays numbers. Keeping the public updated on how many people are in prison and the increase or decrease of numbers is important in my opinion. 3.I feel as if the history of prisons is important, although they give way more information on that then the way a prison is functioning. The healthcare inmates are getting, or how the women are getting more particular assets given to them that differs from males needs. I also think it can be a little more organized, lining things up that correlate with one another. 4. This is hard to pinpoint for 'Prisons' they are not claiming that one thing is more important then the other at all. The article is very neutral. 5.I feel as if women prisons is underrepresented. The information they give us is limited and leaves me wondering what the outcome for these women are. It doesn't present any current information of women having their own prisons with mainly female guards since they were tortured and raped by male guards. It leaves out a lot of todays information on women prisons and they benefits of making it targeted to a women needs and not unisex needs. there is a huge difference from a mans needs to a womens needs and that is being addressed into days world. 6.Yes they do work. They few I checked did fully support the article. 7. All links that are cited do support the claims in the article, although there are some that can have a better claim but still support it. 1. The conversation on the talk page is 'economics of the prison industry' and how prisons are using forced labor for finical gain. 2.rated as a level 4 vital article. We have not discussed prion in class.
 * Is everything in the article relevant to the article topic? Is there anything that distracted you?
 * Is any information out of date? Is anything missing that could be added?
 * What else could be improved?
 * Is the article neutral? Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
 * Check a few citations. Do the links work? Does the source support the claims in the article?
 * Is each fact referenced with an appropriate, reliable reference? Where does the information come from? Are these neutral sources? If biased, is that bias noted?
 * Talk Page
 * What kinds of conversations, if any, are going on behind the scenes about how to represent this topic?
 * How is the article rated? Is it a part of any WikiProjects?
 * How does the way Wikipedia discusses this topic differ from the way we've talked about it in class?

Corrections
Everything is relevant to the topic of corrections. The article points out certain aspects in corrections and some punishment theories such as positive and negative punishment. Nothing was distracting about the article. It was straight to the point but could use more details and research on corrections. The article also include external links to other articles that go into detail on the smaller aspects of the article. There is a article cited that is from 1985, so this will be considered outdated information. Overall most of the work cited is from 2007 to more recently. The article is short. It could be longer and put into more detail. Perhaps the author should go into more detail about the history of corrections and reasoning and motives. Yes, the article is neutral. The article is not very opinion based but is mainly focused on already known and proven facts. Article does not seem biased in any way. Known of the main points were over emphasized. I think the article needs a lot more work and needs more added information for the article to hold more weight. the links do work. each link goes to the article that is being described in the corrections article. basic definietion of the terminology matches what is in the article as well. some main points need citations added. also a lot of the citations are for other wiki pages which need to be checked against its citations as well.
 * Is everything in the article relevant to the article topic? Is there anything that distracted you?
 * Is any information out of date? Is anything missing that could be added?
 * What else could be improved?
 * Is the article neutral? Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
 * Check a few citations. Do the links work? Does the source support the claims in the article?
 * Is each fact referenced with an appropriate, reliable reference? Where does the information come from? Are these neutral sources? If biased, is that bias noted?

[TALK PAGE]
 * The talk page mainly has rules on how the deletion process works and how to find links on the terminology part of the correction article.
 * Author also addresses how women made an impact on correction, however I think this sub topic should be moved to main article and also include a history portion of corrections.

Aarnold15 (talk) 16:15, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

Criminal Justice

 * I do not believe that there is much that is distracting to the reader. Going through the article, the sections are broken down by the subject within the Criminal Justice system. The only thing that I found to be distracting is the layout of the article. They include "Modern Police" at the bottom instead of with the "Law" or "Courts" section.


 * I do believe some of the information on here needs to be updated overall. The Academic discipline portion only included data up to 1975 but nothing beyond that and I really believe the system changed the most after that time period. I would add some detail here.


 * The information that I would want to update is the time period that is given. I would want to look into more recent data that could relate to the Criminal Justice system, because we know that there is date around our time period.


 * I would say this article is neutral. The article describes what the system is, the history, the academic discipline and also the sub categories of the Criminal Justice system such as the courts, corrections and police. The only thing that the article is pushing us towards is that law enforcement is the main article within the Criminal Justice page.


 * Going through the article, the information that is given for the courts and corrections are very lengthy pieces. Comparing this to the police portion, the police portion is only three paragraphs compared having 9 paragraphs for the other two. I believe that the Modern Police section is overlooked and missing some information that would be volatile to us.


 * With looking at citations, all of the links do work properly. They direct you to the correct page on which they would like us to know more information about the certain topic. The sources do relate to the topics very nicely. They all are scholarly pieces so we know that they are reliable in a study, like this one.


 * Looking at the facts described throughout the article, I do believe that they are represented with a reference that is reliable in the subject that they were researching. Most of the information comes from a past study of the topic, research article, the history behind each topic or a journal from authors that are experts about the certain information they are trying to use. I believe they are neutral references because they are not really trying to prove a point, but giving us statistics based around the subject or topic.


 * Talk Page
 * Some conversations that are going on behind the scenes is really trying to tie the concept of Criminal Justice to its sub-categories. I believe the article is trying to provide a background on the subject overall, while trying to argue certain points that researchers have found over time.


 * The article is related overall because of how they set up the article. They set it up as giving the reader some background information (serves as an abstract), and then describing the categories that they mentioned in the beginning paragraph. The article divides each section of the Criminal Justice system but the one thing they do is tying them together. I am unsure if this is part of a WikiProject but I do believe that there is some information that might be helpful to add.


 * I believe that the way that Wikipedia has described this subject is into fuller detail. We have touched on the topic overall but really have not dug down into it. Then again, the topic of the article is really the program that we are trying to obtain, rather than a class about one subject within the field. RosolinoM23 (talk) 16:11, 11 February 2019 (UTC) Rosolino Mannino

Criminal law
EMUramirez (talk) 16:12, 11 February 2019 (UTC) Rogelio Ramirez
 * Everything in the article was relevant to the topic. The “criminal law jurisdictions” section was very distracting; the information did not seem to belong there and was not cited.
 * The information feels dated in some sections, talks about the history of criminal law but does not address the present much. The article could include more recent information, and possibly some statistics.
 * An improvement could be adding who oversees the creation of criminal laws and enforces them.
 * The article does a good job at remaining neutral. The article does not pick sides and is simply informing about the topic of criminal law.
 * None of the viewpoints are overrepresented. The topic about defenses was left blank and needs to be discussed.
 * The links in the citations work, all the sources back the information used in the article.
 * Yes, the facts are backed by reliable references. Most of the information is coming from scholarly articles and books, while the rest is from criminal law cases. After going through the references nothing seems to be biased.
 * The talk page contains conversations about expanding the article. Some argue that the article should expand on the United Kingdom section, while others want to talk more about criminal law history.
 * The article has a B rating and classified as “Top- Importance”. It is part of the WIkiProjects Law and WikiProjects Crime.
 * Wikipedia does not go into much depth about the history of criminal law, the article also fails to give statistics about how these laws are applied and the effects they have.

Prison Sexuality
In the Prison Sexuality article everything is related to the topic. Nothing distracted me, however I did find it interesting that in the article, authors added inmate contraceptive access. For example, health advocates believe that condoms should be provide inside the prisons. Also prisoners should be able to get tested for HIV because they are 8 times higher than the general population.

Many of the scores and information are not dated. But in the article if references a human rights watch report that was published in 2001. The article “"No Escape: Male Rape in U.S. Prisons” argues that rape victims can often turn into consent out of fear or intimidation. This article sited is only about a male prison, and does not give facts about any female prisons. I believe that there should be a newer article sited to back up this information.

Something else that could be improved is linking to words the public may not know. For example the article does link prisons, gender, and rape to provide definitions. But the article doesn’t link anything to consensual sex. I believe giving a link definition to consensual sex would be an improvement if added.

The article is fairly neutral and gives the different types of prison sexual activity for both men and women inmates.

I believe that all the view points on this article have enough information for the reader to understand. They give examples and definitions throughout to further help understand the information.

All citations are backed up by links that work and the sources support the claims in the article.

The article references a mixture of scholarly articles and studies. Also a few website articles are referenced but seem to not be biased. TALK PAGE I found interesting that on the talk page LGBT, human sexuality and Correction and Detention Facilities were working on this article to better it. I was surprised that both groups being so different can together on work on this article to inform readers. People are discussing that this is only an American view point with no information about other countries prisons.

How is the article rated S, for start class. This article is a part of Wikiproject correction and detention facilities, Wikiproject sexology and sexuality, and Wikiproject LBGT studies.

This information has only been discussed on prison rape biased in male prisons.

McGreal Duffy (talk) 16:15, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

Probation
Yes,everything in the article is relevant to the article topic which is probation. Also, nothing distracted me because everything essentially revolved around probation.

I would say that nothing in the article is out of date everything seems fairly recent and relevant.

I would suggest adding the role of a probation officer though.Some of the headings in the article such as, probation violations and probation revocation could be expanded.

A little more information under some of the headings I think could help the article become even better.

The article is relatively neutral, at no point did the author seem bias.

I do not feel that any viewpoints are over represented but again some of the topics deserve a little more information written about them.

Yes, the links do work and the sources support the claims made in the article.

For the most part each fact is referenced with an appropriate, reliable source. The information comes from a combination of scholarly articles, pdfs, and website articles. None of the sources are biased.

Behind the scenes there is discussion to add some more information in a separate article, add more subheadings such as parole vs.probation, and there is even an issue of plagiarizing in one of the sections.

The article is rated Start Class and High Importance and is also apart of a WikiProject Law.

This article actually discuses the topic exactly how I have heard my professors talk about it in class. Jazlynn1 (talk) 16:12, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

Corrections
1. Yes, everything in the article is relevant to the article topic.

2. There is an article cited from 1985 that is outdated, but the other articles mentioned on the page are more up to date. The page could include more theories as it only has a couple listed. It could also provide information on how successful or non-successful the correctional system is.

3. The page could improve by, like mentioned previously, listing more theories related to corrections as well as providing insight on whether the correctional system is successful or not. It could have more detail overall as the page is fairly short.

4. Yes, the article is neutral. No, there are no claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position.

5. The only viewpoints that I believe to be underrepresented are the ones on theories.

6. Yes, the links work, and each source appears to support the claims in the article.

7. I do not think all sources are very reliable but most of the articles are. Most of the information comes from online books as well as some journal articles. There is one source that is from a Canadian correctional website. The least reliable sources are linked to other Wikipedia pages. The sources appear to all be neutral.

Hcutler (talk) 16:15, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

American Juvenile Justice System
Overall there is good information, however, it seems like there is too much going on. I think it could be more concise with the wording and the information which would help organize it better. Overall, there seems to be a good mix of sources. Most of the information came from information from early 2000's. The article was last edited in Oct. 2018 so it's relatively up to date - but I think more information could be added to help reinforce it since it's 2019 now. The flow of the article bothers me, it just seems weirdly organized. It's also been suggested to merge this page into an existing one called Juvenile court. There is a section on the United States and I think if the information could be evaluated to include main, important points that could be a good idea. It includes the processes but is lacking some background. From what I've learned over the past couple years it also seems like juvenile justice fluctuates more than represented here. It could be cool to add more visuals like a graph. The article didn't seem biased. It's mainly factual so there is little room for opinionated claims. However, one thing to point out is that the article heavily talks about the disadvantages but not many advantages. The proposed reform section seems underrepresented. There is a lot more information there and I think quite a few other viewpoints for ways to reform. The first links only have ISBN numbers and that's limited to three or four. The others have all the information but no links. However, once the author starts using PDF sources they seem to work better which makes sense. It's referenced rather well actually. Mostly every claim is supported by a book or article listed in the references. [TALK PAGE]
 * Is everything in the article relevant to the article topic? Is there anything that distracted you?
 * Is any information out of date? Is anything missing that could be added?
 * What else could be improved?
 * Is the article neutral? Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
 * Are there viewpoints that are over represented, or underrepresented?
 * Check a few citations. Do the links work? Does the source support the claims in the article?
 * Is each fact referenced with an appropriate, reliable reference? Where does the information come from? Are these neutral sources? If biased, is that bias noted?
 * The talk page shows this article was chosen by many other students doing the same thing. There's some helpful revisions. Most criticism is geared towards the history section as well as sourcing but it seems to have been improved.
 * There is one helpful update about the decisions related to charging a juvenile versus charging them in the juvenile justice system. The fact that juvenile justice court is geared towards rehabilitation more than adult court, etc. They also included a lot of good info for the history section through new resources and addressed a few concerns about dates.
 * Request to add a section on girls in the juvenile justice system that links out to the gender responsive approach for girls in the juvenile justice system page.

White-Collar Crime
Is everything in the article relevant to the article topic? Is there anything that distracted you? Is any information out of date? Is anything missing that could be added? What else could be improved? Is the article neutral? Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? Check a few citations. Do the links work? Does the source support the claims in the article? Is each fact referenced with an appropriate, reliable reference? Where does the information come from? Are these neutral sources? If biased, is that bias noted? Talk Page
 * The definition part of the article was relevant. There is a section that discusses the longest sentences for white-collar criminals, which could potentially be left out. The article also discusses the relationships to other types of crimes. I got lost in that section and it didn't seem as relevant to white collar crime.
 * The information in the article seems up to date. Most of the sources used in the references were from 1990 and up. For the topic, it seems pretty recent. The authors drew their information from a number of different sources that discuss the main points of the topic.
 * The article doesn't discuss how white-collar crime impacts society. Because it has such a great impact, I feel like this article could add that as a section.
 * The article is neutral. Because it is definitional, there doesn't seem to be any opinions. The only thing I could see as potential bias is the type of information chosen to put in the article itself. The sentencing aspect as well as relational crimes might be important to one person, but not others.
 * The sentencing that offenders received might be overrepresented. There is a large table with that information and it doesn't seem as relevant to the topic as it could be. The bulk of the article doesn't stem around white-collar crime.
 * The links work for the citations that I check. One issue that I did have was that one of the sources was from a news website, which may or may not be biased.
 * One fact was without a citation, which was noted by Wikipedia. I am unsure where the information comes from because of the lack of citation. There are a number of other facts without citations as well. The claims that the article attempts to make aren't being backed up.

What kinds of conversations, if any, are going on behind the scenes about how to represent this topic? How is the article rated? Is it a part of any WikiProjects? How does the way Wikipedia discusses this topic differ from the way we've talked about it in class? Jlyons15 (talk) 02:59, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Other editors have added more citations and made the complaint about the lack of citations before they edited. Another author edited the external links that weren't working. There was no talk on how to better represent the topic.
 * The article is part of four WikiProjects: business, crime, law, and sociology. All are rated start-class.
 * We have not discussed this topic in class.

Incarceration in the United States
Almost everything in the article is relevant to Incarceration in the United States. The only thing that potentially could have been left out is the section about solutions, becuase I dont think it was relevant to Incarceration in the present. There was a graph from 1982-2006 and I would like to see the new data addded. There was a section about Privatization that only went up until 2017. There were some sections that talked about programs that have been implemented by government officials, such as The Departmnet of Justice Smart on Crime Program. The issue was that it did not show how successful the program was. The article appears to be neutral which many statistics being used to shows costs, incarceration rates, etc. The article shares viewpoints from former inmates, however, I did not see any viewpoints from prison officials. All the links work, the claims are backed up well by the linked sources. Yes, the facts are referenced appropriately. Some are biased, such as the Huffington Post, and that bias is not noted Most conversations on this article were about sources and there are conversations about Parental Incarceration effects on Children. This article is rated B class. It is part of 3 WikiProjects... Correction and Detention Facilities, United States and Crime. It is new because it hasn't been discussed in class
 * Is everything in the article relevant to the article topic? Is there anything that distracted you?
 * Is any information out of date? Is anything missing that could be added?
 * What else could be improved?
 * Is the article neutral? Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
 * Check a few citations. Do the links work? Does the source support the claims in the article?
 * Is each fact referenced with an appropriate, reliable reference? Where does the information come from? Are these neutral sources? If biased, is that bias noted?
 * Talk Page
 * What kinds of conversations, if any, are going on behind the scenes about how to represent this topic?
 * How is the article rated? Is it a part of any WikiProjects?
 * How does the way Wikipedia discusses this topic differ from the way we've talked about it in class?

Community policing
Everything is relevant to the topic, there are some areas where stronger connections could be made so that someone who is not familiar with criminology or policing understands the examples and comparisons. The history section focuses mostly on the history of police as a whole and then briefly touches the history evolution of community policing. There are some areas where it is distracting and unclear where certain examples apply to the creation of community policing or policing in general. Most of the studies are from the late 80’s and 90’s, however they are well known and recognized such as KC Patrol Experiment. This article could include a section on how technology and social media can be tied into modern community policing. The article goes back and forth using examples and policies from the U.S. and other country. New subsections for each country could be created to better organize and compare international policies and practices. Article is mostly neutral. Addresses the impact the community can have on the officers and the community. Acknowledges with support the criticism and challenges that come from a community policing approach. Does not give a viewpoint of how citizens respond to a new form of policing in their neighborhood or the challenges they might have to overcome to embrace a community policing approach. Over focuses on why the police benefit from strong community relations Only a few of the citations have links. Those that have links work and the material is connected to the topic and supports the article Reliable references are used to back facts. Most of the sources are from academia or professional law enforcement agencies, bureau of justice statistics, FBI Law Enforcement Bulletins. Sources do not seem to biased, however, sources only come from the police side and not from any community groups or organizations There are multiple suggestions with slightly different definitions of “community policing”. There was also a suggestion for adding a new section that expands on how departments should incorporate community policing polices The article has been used for various course assignments. It is shown as having multiple problems including issues with tone and section length This topic implies that the practice of public criminology could be expanded to include everyone in the criminal justice and criminology field. Police officers are given the responsibility like researchers to crack down on misconceptions about their profession and the criminal justice field. They are creating conversations about how crime is creating problems in the community and how the community can trust and help the police solve these problems.
 * Is everything in the article relevant to the article topic? Is there anything that distracted you?
 * Is any information out of date? Is anything missing that could be added?
 * What else could be improved?
 * Is the article neutral? Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
 * Check a few citations. Do the links work? Does the source support the claims in the article?
 * Is each fact referenced with an appropriate, reliable reference? Where does the information come from? Are these neutral sources? If biased, is that bias noted?
 * Talk Page
 * What kinds of conversations, if any, are going on behind the scenes about how to represent this topic?
 * How is the article rated? Is it a part of any WikiProjects?
 * How does the way Wikipedia discusses this topic differ from the way we've talked about it in class?

Broken Windows Theory
For the most part everything on the wiki page related to the topic. It gave great insight on both the benefits of broken windows theory and the disadvantages/critiques of it as well. Surprisingly, this page went into a lot of detail. Especially with the addition of case studies, as well as authors who have wrote books on the topic. For me, I was most confused about the 'critical developments' section. I see where it was going to social disorganization but it was a stretch to relate it to broken windows theory. They also used examples of riots from the 1960's long before broken windows theory was introduced. Like I said above, using examples from the 1960's does not relate to a topic introduced in the 80's. With that being said, I think the whole idea itself is out of date. It was something primarily used in the 1990's and maybe into the early 2000's. The missing information could be how inconsistent it is with today's ideas of crime and what influences crime. It does cover the drawbacks to the theory but I believe it could still go into more detail than that. What we learned from doing this wikipedia thing is that there is always room to improve on an article. I think there could always be more information. At this moment there is quite a bit of research that has been put into this article. There are additions to the article that reinforce what is being said. As I was reading I was never under the impression that something was speaking out of opinion rather than being neutral. It showed both the advantages and disadvantages of the theory. The text was never trying to make you believe that is something you should or should not support. Nothing over represented. I would say that there could be more criticisms to the theory. Criticisms were underrepresented in terms of points made. I checked quite a few sources and they all seemed to work. I think the sources support the claims of the article. From what I can tell most of them are scholarly sources, which tend to be neutral. One of the sources however took me to Frontline. I have always been skeptical about sources that that. I feel that is more my opinion than anything else. I find peer-reviewed articles to be more appropriate. I went to the talk page of this topic and there hasn't been a whole lot of activity since about 2008 if I read it correctly. Since it is a dated theory I kind of expect that. There was one edit from 2015. From what I can tell that is the most recent. There has been a couple of edits since then but it has been to modify links rather than add additional information. This article has a C-Class rating. I do not think this is a part of any wikiprojects.
 * Is everything in the article relevant to the article topic? Is there anything that distracted you?
 * Is any information out of date? Is anything missing that could be added?
 * What else could be improved?
 * Is the article neutral? Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
 * Check a few citations. Do the links work? Does the source support the claims in the article?
 * Is each fact referenced with an appropriate, reliable reference? Where does the information come from? Are these neutral sources? If biased, is that bias noted?
 * What kinds of conversations, if any, are going on behind the scenes about how to represent this topic?
 * How is the article rated? Is it a part of any WikiProjects?

Recidivism
Everything in this article was relevant to me, the article could have stayed away from individual state facts about recidivism.

-The information that I found to be out of date was the percentage of released prisoners who contribute to the recidivism rate. Most of the articles it has links to are from around 2005. Something I think this article could add is ways people get out of committing the same crimes and becoming part of the statistic.

-Something else that could be improved is updating all of the facts given, there does not seem to be any recent facts to back up the claims made. I think this is important because of how much the criminal justice system can change in a short time.

-All of these view points seem to neutral, this might be because I have been a criminal justice major and have heard all of these points many times over the years. a view point that is under represented to me is why people continue to commit the same crimes, It does go into detail about who it mostly effects but does not go into which crimes those people commit and why they do.

-All of the citations that i checked worked correctly. The sources do support the article.

-Every fact seems to be referenced with an appropriate and reliable source. All of the links I checked went to another wiki page with more sources.The sources seemed to be biased because it comes from all criminal justice backgrounds who probably have a big stake in their research. Talk Page

-The kind of conversations behind the scenes on this topic I think are about what leads to recidivism and how can we stop it from happening as much.

-This article is rated S for start class. It is apart of 3 wiki projects, Wiki psychology, wiki sociology, and wiki correction and detention facilities.

-We have not covered this subject in class but it does not differ that much from other classes i have had that do talk about it.

Criminology
Kaylak23 (talk)
 * 1. Yes, everything in the article is relevant. The only that is distracting is that the Rational choice theory section is really large compared to the other theories.
 * 2.All the information is up to date. Some of the references are old but they are there to refer to the history of the subject.
 * 3.I cant think of any major improvements. Maybe just adding more information about biological theories.
 * 4.Yes the article is neutral. It is more informational than anything it does a good job mentioning all the different theories of why someone would commit a crime.
 * 5.I think that the rational choice theory is long compared to some of the other theories. Although I do think that rational choice theory is important to the field of criminology I think that a few other theories could have been a little longer like Strain theory or differential association.
 * 6.All the links I checked do work, but some of the subsections are missing links and references.
 * 7.Yes all the facts are referenced appropriately. The sources are very reliable because they come from textbooks of journal articles and they do not seem to biased.
 * Talk Page
 * 1.Most of the conversations on the talk page are about adding and cleaning up some of the links. There is a few conversations about subsections like Nature vs. Nurture or public criminology.
 * 2.Criminology is rated as a level 4 vital article in the B class. It is in a few WikiProjects like crime, sociology, and Psychology.
 * 3.The Wikipedia page covers almost everything that I have learned in my classes, but It does add information about queer criminology and I have never heard anything about it before.

Youth Detention Center
Diasav (talk) 16:14, 11 February 2019 (UTC)Diana Sav
 * Everything in this article is relevant, though the order of some of the subtopics could be switched around.
 * The information in this article is pretty up to date, the oldest reference is from 2006.
 * What good be added is maybe a section about how [|youth detention center]s have progressed from the begging to now
 * This article is neutral, it is just explaining what a [|youth detention center] is
 * There are no viewpoints that are over-represented
 * There are a couple links that do not work but others do work.
 * The facts are referenced with appropriate and reliable sources, the sources do not seem biased and the author does not say whether they are or not.
 * Talk Page
 * Many of the conversations were about adding a new topic or merging a topic.
 * This article is rated as a low-level C class in both the WikiProject Law and WikiProject Correction and Detention Facilities
 * I have not covered this subject at all in any of my classes, it does well with giving a sum of what a youth detention center is and some aspects of it but I can not compare it to what I have learned in any class.

Crime
1.Yes I found everything in this article to be relevant

2. all of the information is up to date although I do feel more recent information can be added to labeling theory

3. I believe more information could be added as well

4. This article is neutral and does not take a stance. I feel it provided a good overview of crime 5.Furthermore as I mentioned above I feel that labeling theory was underrepresented

6.I found that all the links do work

7.I found all the sources to be somewhat reliable. Many of the sources I found were journals from the past so I question their validity however I found them to be unbiased.

Juvenile Court
Everything in this article is relevant to the topic of the article, the "reform" section of the article distracted me the most because it was the longest part of the article that was very dense with information and history of juvenile court. All of the information in this article is up to date, the only reference that was not from the 2000's was in 1991, and it related to a case of abolishing the juvenile justice court. I believe that the section labeled "court procedure" could include a lot more information. I was on the jury of a juvenile court in High School, and there is a lot more that goes on that could be included here by finding the right articles about it. For the majority of this article, the viewpoints are neutral stating information and facts of the juvenile court, and juvenile justice without any of the authors biases/unbiased opinion. Under the section of "reform" there is a biased claim against juvenile courts based on children's rights, but I do not believe this claim was overrepresented, I think it is an important part of juvenile justice. All of the citations and references links do work and will direct you to that specific article. I think that where the sources are linked in the article is very appropriate, I do not see any problem with claims not being supported by references. Each fact that was referenced throughout the article directed me to its own article page, where I found information that was reliable that supported the validity of the Juvenile Court article. Every source that I checked out came from wikipedia, I was never directed to another webpage or any other website besides Wikipedia. Under the "mandatory minimum sentencing" the references were biased against mandatory minimum sentences for juveniles, and the author of this article noted that this reference supported the claim that mandatory minimum sentences for juveniles are "unconstitutional". I found multiple conversations about how this topic could be represented with more history of the juvenile court rather than so many facts. I also found comments about adding to the article about how adults affect juveniles. There were multiple questions that were asked about the age of juvenile offenders, or just clarifications in general. This article is part of the "WikiProject Sociology" rated start-class, also part of the "WikiProject Law" rated start-class mid-importance, and part of the "WikiProject Law Enforcement" rated start-class. Wikipedia talks about this topic is very detailed claims, with a lot of sources and different places to go for more information or clarification, as related to class. Alexandria Paliszewski (talk) 16:18, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Evaluating content:
 * Evaluating tone:
 * Evaluating sources:
 * Checking the talk page

Restorative Justice
Overall the article on Restorative Justice does a good job of introducing the reader to the subject in a concise and impartial manner. The content seems to be sourced appropriately throughout and presents information in an unbiased manner. Many of the sections are helpful in providing supplemental information on the topic such as the history, comparing and contrasting to other approaches, and various criticisms. The tone of the article is professional, at no point does it interject emotion in a way to paint Restorative Justice in a dishonest manner, it is impartial and fair.


 * Many edits were made that restructure, or completely remove sentences, this improves the concision of the article.
 * The links and citations tested are up to date and relevant.
 * The main definition provided is based off of multiple sources and scholars; however, the quotes used seem quite lengthy.
 * The contrast to traditional goals of justice are a helpful introduction.
 * Some of the content relies too much on a single source and not on the numerous others provided.
 * The links to other Wikipedia pages provide effective examples.
 * The "methods" section is helpful as it shows a varied range of practices.
 * The section concerning Positive Criminology doesn't provide a source; however, it does link to the associated page.
 * The criticisms put forward show that the article is unbiased, or at least presents multiple views.
 * The "research" section could be revised to present the material in a more straightforward way.

Police

 * Everything about the article is relevant to the topic of police.
 * Nothing is out of date. Its talking about the history of police and how police got the name its self.
 * Really everything about this article was fine nothing needs to be improved.
 * The article is neutral and does not favor a argument.
 * All the links i clicked worked and supported the topic of policing.
 * All facts are from reliable scholarly articles. The sources were neutral and didn't favor a side.
 * The conversation in this article really is just explaining the police job functions and where the name police came from.
 * We haven't talked about the role of police in class.

Prison reform
Everything in the article is relevant. They included history, theory, and, examples. The sources are current, but there seems to be a lack of contemporary examples that make it seem out of date. The examples section needs to be improved and the theories of incarceration occupies a disproportionate amount of space. The article is neutral and does not favor any arguments. All of the links I clicked worked and supported the claims. There appears to be a lack of citations in the last few paragraphs and the theories section even when citing facts. the conversation leans towards negative as most agree that the page has the wrong priorities in concern with detail. The article is rated as C-Class and is part of the Correction and Detention Facilities, and Law WikiProjects. --Abochar (talk) 01:10, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Is everything in the article relevant to the article topic? Is there anything that distracted you?
 * Is any information out of date? Is anything missing that could be added?
 * What else could be improved?
 * Is the article neutral? Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
 * Check a few citations. Do the links work? Does the source support the claims in the article?
 * Is each fact referenced with an appropriate, reliable reference? Where does the information come from? Are these neutral sources? If biased, is that bias noted?
 * What kinds of conversations, if any, are going on behind the scenes about how to represent this topic?
 * How is the article rated? Is it a part of any WikiProjects?

Stanford Prison Experiment
·      Is everything in the article relevant to the article topic? Is there anything that distracted you?

everything in the article appears relevant to the SPE, although I feel that there is some concision needed for the introduction.

·      Is any information out of date? Is anything missing that could be added?

the information in the article is to date with more current criticisms.

·      What else could be improved?

I can't think of anything.

·      Is the article neutral? Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?

I think in the back ground section it is biased toward the idea the guards were horrible, which even though that is not really able to be disputed but it should be more about the facts of how the participants and Zimbardo felt.

·      Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?

I do not believe so Jbrichan (talk) 17:24, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

White Collar Crime
Everything is relevant, except where it talks about different countries. Every country deals with all crimes differently. What distracted me was when it explained the different types of crimes. They did not explain what they were doing, so at first, I thought they were just explaining what other crimes were. If I was an average person looking up what white-collar crime was, I may not care about the different types of crimes. The examples are not terribly outdated, but there could have been a few more recent examples given. I think it would have been helpful to include information on how often a white collar crime is sentenced to prison. I think there should have been a short explanation under the "relationships to other types of crimes". It was not completely obvious what they were doing since it started with blue collar crime. It may also be helpful to explain that there are different types of white collar crimes earlier in the article. No The links do work. The links do support the claims. From the links I selected, it does seem to be unbiased information. There are proper citations. The links brought me to government websites, websites of law offices, and Politico. There are only two messages, both are stating things that are wrong with the pages and some fixes they made. It is a part of four WikiProjects: Bussiness, Crime, Law, and Sociology. We have not talked about white collar crimes. Asutton7 (talk) 22:47, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Is everything in the article relevant to the article topic? Is there anything that distracted you?
 * Is any information out of date? Is anything missing that could be added?
 * What else could be improved?
 * Is the article neutral? Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
 * Check a few citations. Do the links work? Does the source support the claims in the article?
 * Is each fact referenced with an appropriate, reliable reference? Where does the information come from? Are these neutral sources? If biased, is that bias noted?
 * Talk Page
 * What kinds of conversations, if any, are going on behind the scenes about how to represent this topic?
 * How is the article rated? Is it a part of any WikiProjects?
 * How does the way Wikipedia discusses this topic differ from the way we've talked about it in class?

Law
Is everything in the article relevant to the article topic? Is there anything that distracted you? Is any information out of date? Is anything missing that could be added? What else could be improved? Is the article neutral? Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? Check a few citations. Do the links work? Does the source support the claims in the article? Is each fact referenced with an appropriate, reliable reference? Where does the information come from? Are these neutral sources? If biased, is that bias noted? Talk Page What kinds of conversations, if any, are going on behind the scenes about how to represent this topic? How is the article rated? Is it a part of any WikiProjects? How does the way Wikipedia discusses this topic differ from the way we've talked about it in class?
 * Law is an incredibly broad topic, which is made clear by this article, but most points addressed seemed relevant to the topic of Law. I was personally a bit distracted by the Legal Theory section, as where the rest of the sections seem to focus physical aspects or types of law, this section was based more around lenses of law, which felt the least relevant to the page.
 * To the best of my knowledge this page is well up to date, and includes a brief overview of the major important aspects of law.
 * The article is written primarily in academic language, so the average, who would likely be the type using a Wikipedia article to learn about law, may have a harder time understanding it. In some areas, especially the opening few paragraphs, I would make the language a bit more understandable for the average person.
 * The article seems to remain neutral aside from the section on Legal Theories, where each section does lean towards a biased point of view, but this is addressed in ways such as "one definition of law" or by presenting certain academic's as the founders of certain ideas, along with the name of the section, "Legal Theories".
 * In comparison to the rest of the article, which explains many aspects of law without going to far in depth, the section on the actual definition of law and whether it's possible to define law seems underdeveloped, especially considering the longer opening paragraph that attempts to define law as well.
 * Many of the citations just lead back to more Wikipedia pages, which definitely support the the claims being made, but aren't necessarily strong sources. Other citations did lead to outer trustworthy source that supported the claims.
 * This article contains a vast amount of information, so every single fact is not followed by a citation, but citations are present when necessary, such as when referring to historical references, international references, viewpoints (which are naturally biased but entail that idea), definitions of words, etc.
 * There are tons of conversations going on in the talk page, from what image should be featured on the article page, criticism of the "pro-law bias" of the article (which I left out of the bias I found as I personally don't believe an article informing the reader of what law is, is inherently "pro-law", simply informative), edits made to the article's lead, link modifications, and much more.
 * This article was a former featured article, and as a B-Class. It's a part of 6 different WikiProjects.
 * We haven't really addressed law in itself as a topic in class, obviously as a criminology class the whole field revolves around law in a way, so everything we've done has slightly been based on law, but as a topic itself we haven't really discussed it in a way comparable to this article.

Prison Sexuality
- Everything seems to be relevant to the topic of prison sexuality. - I think there should be more information on sexual relationships between prison staff and inmates. There is only a small paragraph on the topic even though these relationships make up a generous portion of sex in prisons. It could also be moved into its own heading. - There are many things that are mentioned but not explained. For example, they mention that the first study on prison prison sexuality with women was done in 1913, but nothing else about the study in mentioned. What did it find? What was it looking to achieve? Where was it done? - The information in the article is neutral, in my opinion. I didn't notice any bias in particular. - As I mentioned before, I feel that relationships between staff and inmates is very underrepresented. There should also be more discussion on policies set in place to prevent sexual relationships. This topic is mentioned a few times but not fully discussed. - Some links work but there are a few that require an account to access the article, so it doesn't help the reader much. - There are a few sources linked that don't seem to be very reliable, like from local web-pages. - One conversation that stuck out to me was one that mentioned that they felt some information wasn't very relevant to the title or that the title should be changed to better match the article. I agreed with this opinion because the article did seem to include too much about about prison rape when the article is about prison sexuality. Rape does fall into that category, but the focus isn't on prison rape, even though it is the largest section in the article. This article is a part of 3 WikiProjects: Correction and Detention Facilities (rated Start-Class and Mid-Importance), Sexology and Sexuality (rated Start-Class and Mid-Importance), and LGBT Studies (rated Start-Class). - I don't recall discussing prison sexuality in class yet.NJaworski (talk) 03:52, 25 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Is everything in the article relevant to the article topic? Is there anything that distracted you?
 * Is any information out of date? Is anything missing that could be added?
 * What else could be improved?
 * Is the article neutral? Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
 * Check a few citations. Do the links work? Does the source support the claims in the article?
 * Is each fact referenced with an appropriate, reliable reference? Where does the information come from? Are these neutral sources? If biased, is that bias noted?
 * Talk Page
 * What kinds of conversations, if any, are going on behind the scenes about how to represent this topic?
 * How is the article rated? Is it a part of any WikiProjects?
 * How does the way Wikipedia discusses this topic differ from the way we've talked about it in class?

Race in the United States criminal justice system
Yes, I would say that everything in the article does pertain to race in the United States. The only distraction here is the lengthy historical background takes away from the criminal aspect. Nothing is out of date from what I can see. I feel that more could have been added to the "Call to Reform" passage. Adding cases of racial disparities from the current news and reviewing all the laws and policies that affect racial disparities would add to the text. The article is neutral. Although I feel like it is geared towards the male point of view and does not show the effects of women who deal with the racial disparities within the US criminal justice system. Many things seems to be from a male perspective. Women are underrepresented here. Yes. The links are functioning and are informative about race in the criminal justice system. Each fact comes from other sources either scholarly articles or journal references. Other websites are also utilized that present cold facts. If it is biased it is noted from other wiki handlers. In the talk page wiki handlers are discussing the appropriate ways to introduce topics, properly citing, sentence structure and more. I do not know how it is rated in Wiki. I do not know for sure or how to find out yet. This topic is more about the specifics of racial disparities and its historical context over time in the United States. Wikipedia discusses our class topic in a more information and inviting way.Cfowler8 (talk) 00:55, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Is everything in the article relevant to the article topic? Is there anything that distracted you?
 * Is any information out of date? Is anything missing that could be added?
 * What else could be improved?
 * Is the article neutral? Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
 * Check a few citations. Do the links work? Does the source support the claims in the article?
 * Is each fact referenced with an appropriate, reliable reference? Where does the information come from? Are these neutral sources? If biased, is that bias noted?
 * Talk Page
 * What kinds of conversations, if any, are going on behind the scenes about how to represent this topic?
 * How is the article rated? Is it a part of any WikiProjects?
 * How does the way Wikipedia discusses this topic differ from the way we've talked about it in class?