Wikipedia talk:Wiki Ed/Eastern Michigan University/CRM447W Senior Seminar in Criminology (Winter 2019)/Assignment3f

Davon Lundy --Davon0828 (talk) 15:22, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
You can add known studies done by professional criminologist that relate to the topic of public criminology.

Peer Review by Jacob Brichan
Maybe briefly touching on the arguments for each article we have read may not be the best solution because a lead section is a brief synopsis of the article, not everything involved. I would introduce the acronym for public criminology sooner rather than mid second paragraph after saying public criminology several times in the first paragraph, but I would not switch out any of the "public criminologies" for PC yet. the flow of your draft reads well. there may be some sentence structure issues in the last part of your last paragraph.

Peer Review by Tifani Byrd
Lead I really like how it is being tied to a lot of the sections, and how it includes some of the major public criminologists.

Structure The structure of the draft text flows very well.

Balance I think that there could be some information o the impact that these criminologist had to the field.

Content It is very thorough and informative. I like how the group added the criminologists suggestions.

Sources I think that using information from the other groups makes the lead section flow really well. Also adding information about the most t popular criminologist was a good add because it provides a little background information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tbyrd10 (talk • contribs) 15:06, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

Lead
I think that the lead section is great so far. I think public criminology should be explained more into detail, and how it is beneficial to criminology as a whole.

Structure
As far as structure I actually don't think that it needs to be changed at all, it flows well, and makes sense the way it is.

Balance
overall the balance is pretty good, the only thing I would add or change to enhance the balance is transitions to new points. Instead of jumping from one idea to another, add some transitions so it isn't so choppy.

Content
I think the content is unbiased. I think that some of the history of public criminology (where it was derived from) could be moved to the background section as it would fit better there

Lead
The lead section seems strong to me, but I think there could be more concision. I also think that the lead could use a solid, quoted definition from Uggen and Inderbitzin of what public criminology is.

Structure
The structure seems well balanced. If I were to change something, I would focus more on a solid definition of public criminology instead of where it is derived from.

Balance
The balance seems fine. If you had to make any changes at all (which you probably don't), I would eliminate the examples of public criminology. I think that if someone were to only read the lead section, the examples in the lead are necessary. But they could also be seen as unnecessary with a whole section dedicated to examples.

Content
Content is neutral and unbiased. It is effective that you added a sentence about criticisms.

Lead
I think you have a strong lead section. It is important to start with defining public criminology as well as explaining how public criminology ties to other types of criminology.

Structure
The structure looks good. I think I would eliminate the short example of what type of criticism comes with public criminology considering there is a section for criticisms. I would just end the sentence at "there have been criticisms along with it as well."

Balance
The balance between introducing different topics is good.

Content
I think the content is great. I like that definitions will be included in addition to the history and different types of criminology.

Lead

 * I think first defining public criminology is a good idea.

Structure

 * The structure works well.

Balance

 * I thin this section has great balance. By pulling in other parts of the wiki page bring it more full circle.

Content

 * you give some of the authors argument and ideas, maybe add a few more. try and touch base on at least one perspective of each article and rewrite the lead section to make it easier for the average reader to understand.

Lead

 * I think the lead section is off to a good start, but perhaps use a quote or synopsis from one of the readings that can help give a good intro into public criminology. GdusaEMU (talk) 02:57, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

Structure

 * Structurally I think it's a good idea to mention public criminology before sociology as that is the subject of the article, not the latter. GdusaEMU (talk) 02:58, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

Balance

 * Balance is critical to this section as it needs to represent the entire article, that being said it's good! GdusaEMU (talk) 03:05, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

Content

 * For content I think you should either mention all of the major contributing authors or at least capture the essence of what they contribute to the subject. GdusaEMU (talk) 02:59, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

Lead
I think the section start off good and strong.

Structure
The structure of the section sounds really good. I like the idea of including a little bit about what each section will be talking about just remember to include each section.

Balance
The section seems pretty balanced just make sure you don't talk about one section more than you talk about the other.

Content
The content is all there just make sure it flows and goes in order.

Peer Review by Christina Fowler
Peer Review by Christina Fowler Lead Structure Balance Content Sources Cfowler8 (talk) 05:36, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
 * The leading section for public criminology is great for starters. It establishes its credibility and is a good beginning point for the rest of the page.
 * Structure so far is mixed. I think having the lead section first, then pioneers and the needs sections will make the flow of the overall article good well. Each particular paragraph needs to mesh with the previous one.
 * Balance is off only because we do not have enough information overall in this article. Adding in more sources and inputting the factual info will make balancing the sections more easy.
 * As I said, adding more factual info and sources will make for good content. Snippets(sidebars) of background information on the field of study or anything pertaining to public criminology will give the content more easily accessible resources from other cites.
 * Linking to outside or other wiki pages could prove helpful. Information on public criminology needs to be more widely explored, so research through scholarly articles through links provided can assist in making other important connections about public crime.

Peer Review by Alexandria Paliszewski

 * Explaining why we need public criminology, and the benefits of it can be one point.
 * it is unnecessary to compare and contrast the benefits of public criminology to different forms of criminology.
 * you could use this section to explain the background on public criminology and how it has benefited criminology as a whole.
 * use research on criminologists listed on the wiki page to show why public criminology should be more accessible to the public.
 * by using the research you found for this section, you could explain how they are concerning the public, and how it might enhance public criminology debates.
 * Alexandria Paliszewski (talk) 15:28, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

Peer Review by Rosolino Mannino

 * I really like the idea of adding why we need Public Criminology. While reading through the text, that is the one thing that they do not include so I think it would be crucial to add this after defining what Public Criminology is.
 * I also believe that the way the paragraphs are split up, they include both the need but also the history of Public Criminology. Might want to let the pioneer section use this.
 * I like the idea of including a cause and effect of certain studies pertaining to Public Criminology. You could even search if there are studies with statistics revolving around this.

Lead

 * Looking at the first paragraph of this section, I do believe that they make their point come across on why we need to know the importance of this topic and also some research to back it up.

Structure

 * I do like how you go into the history of the subject. I like how you started in the 1920's and moved through the time table laying out specific examples of each at in Shaw in the 1920's and then Ohlin in the 1960/1970's.

Balance

 * I believe the way you set up the paragraphs and information you have included in each, it represents the literature accurately and in a knowledgable way. Maybe represent the work of John Irwin in a different manner because it sounds like you went from the history of Public criminology to the history of John Irwin.

Content

 * Looking at the information, it did not pull me to one author over the over. It was more informative, rather than persuasive. I don't believe that there was a lot of positive v. negative, but rather more informative information about the subject and the history of it.

Peer Review by Amanda Akles
Your ideas are good with adding why you need public criminology and the cause and effect of it. Your first paragraph is set up very nice for the rest of the information following it.

Peer Review by Rogelio Ramirez
2601:406:5100:7915:10BE:AAE7:C043:87E2 (talk) 15:59, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Really like the point of George L. Kirkham, very early example of public criminology.
 * Need to make clear how public criminology helps the people.
 * Is there any evidence that public criminology actually teaches people, and helps improve policies?

Lead

 * The section does follow along with the lead section well, both groups will need to work together to get everything that corresponds in each section.

Structure

 * Good job at keeping a timeline, and not jumping back and forth with the years. Gives public criminology a sense of progression.

Balance

 * Put more reasons why we need public criminology, and less on people that had an effect on the study.
 * Focus on what led to the creation of the study.

Content

 * Did a good job at remaining neutral, none of the content is telling me that some of the people had a greater impact on the study than others, or if someone was wrong.

Lead

 * The lead section follows along well. I like how you admittedly gave other sources form the authors we discussed in class.

Structure

 * The structure is also well done. how you explained what other authors think as well as keeping the dates in order.

Balance

 * I think you need some more examples form the authors as to why the public needs public criminology.

Content

 * There needs to be more over all information on the back ground of public criminology. Maybe for information for the authors you talk about.

Lead

 * The first paragraph is clear and it does a good job of informing me why we need public criminology.

Structure

 * It is structured well, and following the timeline helps keep things clear.

Balance

 * Better tie in the reasons for the necessity with the examples provided.

Content

 * The content was neutral and was definitely informative over persuasive.

April Sutton Assignment 3g
Asutton7 (talk) 14:36, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Lead
 * I think that Shaw should be stated before Uggen and Inderbitzen
 * Structure
 * I think it is a bit short, but I see that you plan on adding to it.
 * Balance
 * Good balance.
 * Content
 * I like that you use older examples in this section, so it doesn't repeat what the examples section will say.
 * Sources
 * Need to link to the sources more.

Natalia Jaworski, Assignment 3g
-When talking about the misconceptions you could talk about the how the media is involved with spreading fear and false information

-When discussing the example you may want to briefly mention the outcome of the criminologists efforts (did the Chicago Area Project actually reduce high delinquency rates? Did “Signal Zero” actually change student perception of police officers?)

-The final drafted paragraph could be restructured. It moves from one person to the next, almost like a list, and reads awkwardly.

-It may be a good idea to explain why public criminology can be so beneficial. The first paragraph describes public criminology but I don’t see much about how it specifically benefits the public. NJaworski (talk) 14:55, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

Peer Review by Hannah Cutler
A suggestion would be to name some of the outcomes of early public criminology such as how people were affected by it (if you can find details on that subject). It seems that every other topic is covered. I like that a timeline is going to be implemented as well as examples and accomplishments of early criminology. Benefits of early criminology could be added in as well which could go along with accomplishments and outcomes of how people were affected. I think that it is really smart of this group to include pre-existing information that came before public criminology. Overall, the outline that the group has currently sounds really great, and it is off to a great start.

Peer review by Davon Lundy

Davon0828 (talk) 16:44, 31 March 2019 (UTC) I would say you could add something on how did the topic of public criminology come about. As far as who was the first person who brought up the idea to show there are flaws in the study of criminology.

Peer Review by Austin
I agree that there needs to be a more inclusive list of pioneers separate from just the few listed. In the original document they limit their text to mostly just listing the names. I think it would be beneficial to go into greater detail outlining the pioneers' specific contributions. A timeline of contributions also sounds like a great idea. This would fully illustrate the progression that public criminology has made. Also, you would obviously need to remove information that pertains to the previous need for section while only highlighting pioneers and their efforts.

Peer Review by Jamie Lyons
Jlyons15 (talk) 15:24, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Are the pioneers supposed to be people who started the notion of public criminology, or are they people who were practicing criminology publicly before public criminology had a platform?
 * I think that people who practiced criminology publicly before public criminology had a background are not as powerful as the pioneers who invented the notion of public criminology. You can include people who practiced criminology publicly as "examples of public criminologists," but I wouldn't give them credit for the notion of public criminology.
 * The accomplishments of public criminology should have their own subheading in the pioneers group to make it easier to read.
 * I like the idea of adding a timeline of the early public criminologists

Lead

 * It may be beneficial to include a bit more information regarding how public criminology can be traced to Uggen and Inderbitzin such as how/why?

Structure
Structure is good - the progression of points makes sense.

Balance

 * Balance is good!

Content

 * It's a cool idea to include a timeline of different pioneers.
 * I feel like the last sentence regarding Uggen and Inderbitzin could be worded in a more straightforward way, if that makes sense - even if you added a bit more information and broke it up into different sentences so it was fluid.

Lead

 * I like how the section begins with Uggen and Inderbitzen, this sets the stage for the other pioneers. GdusaEMU (talk) 03:08, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

Structure

 * I think the points take a logical path, but a better conclusion could benefit the section. GdusaEMU (talk) 03:09, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

Balance

 * I think the balance of this section is adequate, but could be improved. GdusaEMU (talk) 03:10, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

Content

 * I think you could add more about Barak. GdusaEMU (talk) 03:10, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

Lead

 * The first sentence was nice and sweet and strait to the point

Structure

 * The Structure is good

Balance

 * I believe more could be added, Include the first person who actually mentioned "Public Criminology" Eamonn Carrabine

Content

 * If possible more details could be added, if you can find something that talks about why Uggen and Inderbitzen chose to speak on this topic that would be a nice addition

April Sutton Assignment 3g

 * Lead
 * I like the lead.
 * Structure
 * It is short, but I see you plan on adding to it.
 * Balance
 * Good balance
 * Content
 * I like that you plan on adding people who did public criminology before there was a term for it.
 * Sources
 * Good use of sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Asutton7 (talk • contribs) 14:40, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

Kayla kint, Assignment 3g
Lead  The lead is good i like how you started with Uggen and inderbitzen

Structure for what you have so far the structure is good. It is nicely laid out and the progression makes sense.

Balance The balance is good

Content I like what you have so far, you just need to add more pioneers and details

Sources I think some more sources should be added — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kaylak23 (talk • contribs) 15:22, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

Peer Review by Diana Sav
·Link the references

·Talk a little more about Rock’s Criticism and What Bells says we should do to help Public Criminology shed light to the system, maybe one or two sentences for each.

·“In addition, many scholars have struggled with the best ways to reach the public in a meaningful way. Criminologists Carrie Sanders and Lauren Eisler found it hard to engage the public when they opened a college course on criminology up to the public.” I Feel like this could be brought into one sentence “Many Scholars such as Carrie Sanders and Lauren Eisler have found if difficult to meaningfully engage the public in their public college course on Criminology.”

·Try to find a link to a wiki page on “Public Scholarship” if possible

·Elaborate a little on how Wacquant says about how the word “public” confuses professional politics with normal citizen life

Peer Review by Rogelio Ramirez

 * Like how several different criminologists were used in the section, even the ones that support it have some criticism for the study.EMUramirez (talk) 15:24, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Possibly add how the public feels about public criminology, do they criticize it? EMUramirez (talk) 15:28, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

Peer Review by Garner Dusa
I like the idea of expanding on the idea of the role of media, this is relevant from the perspective of news making criminology and Barak's work will no doubt be important to cite for this. In addition, I like the idea of expanding the information that is presented by Rock as it highlights many relevant issues with the page in general. Overall I support the idea of transitioning the format of this section,while a bullet section is good for quick presentation, in depth paragraphs can far better explain the subject to the general public. GdusaEMU (talk) 15:23, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

Lead
Looking at the draft text I feel that the first sentence of the section can be stronger.

Structure
Again, looking at the draft text the structure could be a little better. The paragraphs seem more like a list than a paragraph so, maybe just expanding a little more on the criticisms of each author.

Balance
I think that the section is well balanced not really something you guys have to worry about.

Content
The content is there but expanding on each criticism and finding a couple more could help the section be even stronger.

Peer Review by Tayler Royal
I think that it is a good idea to group together authors that have common criticisms to show they are valid. You could also try to find some articles that go against or are responses to common criticisms that offer solutions or show they are not valid. The argument that criminology in general is a contested field and expanding Bell's arguement that problems within the criminal justice system affect criminology could be expanded.Troyal15 (talk) 15:28, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

Peer Review by Kayla Kint
I really like how so many different opinions and point of views were talked about in this section. Maybe just expand more on how public criminology is talked about in the news, and discuss Emma bell's ideas further.

Peer Review by Rosolino Mannino

 * I like the way that you would add certain examples into groups. This will allow ideas to tie together.
 * Explain what the public's opinion is on this subject of public criminology.
 * I would think about how you would split paragraphs up. Maybe certain people in one paragraph and certain research into another? — Preceding unsigned comment added by RosolinoM23 (talk • contribs) 15:53, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

Lead

 * Introduction sentence reads really good and gives an adequate foreword of what the section is about

Structure

 * The structure works well, nothing sticks out, has a good flow

Balance

 * has good balance, there isn't an overwhelming amount on a partciular part of the critisisms from any of the criminologists

Content

 * your content is netrual explaining the arguments in brief of the different Criminologists

Lead

 * The way you started the paragraph was really good

Structure

 * Overall it has good structure, you hit the main points

Balance

 * You do well explaining everything, I think maybe you can emphasis a little more on what Rock and Bell say

Content

 * The content was also good, you talk about the criticisms other authors have

Natalia Jaworski, Assignent 3g
–The section is very well written and reads well. Good job briefly explaining each example without adding too much information.

–You could possibly add some examples of public criminologists refuting the criticisms? (Some argue PC lacks scientific method, reliability, etc. while others believe that criminologists do use legit research techniques)

–Maybe explain more why others (like Loic Wacquant) think that the “public” label causes issues. Provide reasons and examples of how the public label has negative effects in the field. NJaworski (talk) 14:57, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

Peer Review by April Sutton
I like that it will be written in a narrative form, instead of bullet points. I think it could be beneficial to explain how Sanders and Eisler carried out their experiment by making their course open to the public for free. I understand what the experiment was, but that was because I read the article. I think exploring new media, as you have stated, will help make the article more relevant. When you explore ongoing research experiments, you should be careful not to introduce the material as finished research. Make sure to state that it is ongoing. The plan to make a paragraph about how people are using their experiences with public criminology to educate people might need some explanation, such as what were their experiences and how that influences what they taught others. There should be links to outside sources of examples, such as the blog by Inderbitzen and any added material. I would like to know how you plan on organizing the examples. Are you going to just start talking about them or order them in a specific way? Asutton7 (talk) 15:25, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

Peer Review by McGreal Duffy
I love the first bullet point. But I think you should explain on how the journalist and criminologist will form a relationship. Would they form this relationship by reporting together?

When you discuss Neil Barsky's and Bill Kelle's articles on the reports about criminal justice on the web, I feel that some links to their articles may be important.

Over all looks like this will be a great edit for current examples of public criminology.

Peer Review By Konrad Stein
I feel that you have a solid plan but this could be improved by finding and including more links to articles especially ones that contain or relate to rocks view. Give more examples of the relationship formed between the news outlets/journalists and criminologists. Overall its a solid plan just feel adding more outside sources and articles would be very beneficial.

Lead

 * You could an introduction sentence that talks about how examples have changed over time and with technology Troyal15 (talk) 14:23, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

Structure

 * Pretty good structure, everything flows. You could add dates or group the examples by the type of media they use Troyal15 (talk) 14:23, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

Balance

 * Good balance, fits in with the overall article. Troyal15 (talk) 14:23, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

Content

 * Everything has a neural point of view. You could add some of the challenges the specific examples faced. Troyal15 (talk) 14:24, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

Lead
The lead of your section is good, but if you want to make it a bit more narrative you could provide another sentence or two kind of transitioning from what the rest of the article has been talking about to your examples.

Structure
I think for the examples bullet points is fine, but it would be helpful to perhaps have an introductory paragraph beforehand.

Balance
Your draft text of examples seems balanced in discussion of different authors

Content
Great content on examples of public criminology that you do have, maybe finding a few more could be beneficial

Peer Review by Beau Smith
Beauemu23 (talk) 15:22, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Add another section to the article, an example could be "Present day public crim" or talk about the direction public crim is headed. Could also add a section naming some of the accomplishments of public crim.
 * I like the idea of adding pictures to the article, i think this makes it feel more complete. Along with adding pictures to the article a good idea you would be linking public crim on other pages to get this topic more noticed. The overall flow I think is well put and easy to read for people who just happen to stumble across the page as well as someone with experience in the criminal justice field. Another possible thing that could be added is a graph or chart of some sort to depict some kind of data in public crim. This along with actual sources of people will help give validity.

Peer Review by Hannah Cutler
I think your plan for "beautifying" the page's overall appearance sounds really good. Fine details are being considered as well as the bigger details. Adding links to the public criminology page onto other pages is a really smart idea as well. I think that's extremely important when trying to make the public criminology page more well known. The plan that is established seems well developed, and I don't know that anything additional could be added to what you already have considering all bases seem to be covered. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hcutler (talk • contribs) 04:42, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

Peer Review by Lauren Mullins

 * I think that's a great idea to do general maintenance on the page. There are plenty of little details that have been overlooked that can make the article feel less established. Particularly the issue with solving the orphan problem and then adding public criminology to other articles - that's great because if it's not addressed the article won't reach as many people in the first place. Plus when I see articles like that I tend to question their reliability. Overall, I feel like it's also beneficial to just have someone to look at the page as a whole to make sure it's appealing to readers.

Lmullins19 (talk) 19:00, 31 March 2019 (UTC)
 * More pictures will look so much better!

Peer Review by Christina Fowler Lead The leading section for public criminology is great for starters. It establishes its credibility and is a good beginning point for the rest of the page. Structure Structure so far is mixed. I think having the lead section first, then pioneers and the needs sections will make the flow of the overall article good well. Each particular paragraph needs to mesh with the previous one. Balance Balance is off only because we do not have enough information overall in this article. Adding in more sources and inputting the factual info will make balancing the sections more easy. Content As I said, adding more factual info and sources will make for good content. Snippets(sidebars) of background information on the field of study or anything pertaining to public criminology will give the content more easily accessible resources from other cites. Sources Linking to outside or other wiki pages could prove helpful. Information on public criminology needs to be more widely explored, so research through scholarly articles through links provided can assist in making other important connections about public crime. Cfowler8 (talk) 05:32, 1 April 2019 (UTC)