User:Turtlegirl33/Racial Profiling/Jcaustin2002 Peer Review

Peer review

Complete your peer review exercise below, providing as much constructive criticism as possible. The more detailed suggestions you provide, the more useful it will be to your classmate. Make sure you consider each of the following aspects:

Lead

Guiding questions:

Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer?
Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?
Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?

Content

Guiding questions:

Is the content added relevant to the topic?
Is the content added up-to-date?
Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics?

Tone and Balance

Guiding questions:

Is the content added neutral?
Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?

Sources and References

Guiding questions:

Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
Does the content accurately reflect what the cited sources say? (You'll need to refer to the sources to check this.)
Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
Are the sources current?
Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible?
Are there better sources available, such as peer-reviewed articles in place of news coverage or random websites? (You may need to do some digging to answer this.)
Check a few links. Do they work?

Organization

Guiding questions:

Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors?
Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?

Images and Media

Guiding questions: If your peer added images or media

Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic?
Are images well-captioned?
Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations?
Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way?

For New Articles Only

If the draft you're reviewing is for a new article, consider the following in addition to the above.

Does the article meet Wikipedia's Notability requirements - i.e. Is the article supported by 2-3 reliable secondary sources independent of the subject?
How exhaustive is the list of sources? Does it accurately represent all available literature on the subject?
Does the article follow the patterns of other similar articles - i.e. contain any necessary infoboxes, section headings, and any other features contained within similar articles?
Does the article link to other articles so it is more discoverable?

Overall impressions

Guiding questions:

Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete?
What are the strengths of the content added?
How can the content added be improved?

Examples of good feedback

A good article evaluation can take a number of forms. The most essential things are to clearly identify the biggest shortcomings, and provide specific guidance on how the article can be improved.

Peer review of "Homemaking"
Peer review of this article about a famous painting

Additional Resources

Check out the Editing Wikipedia PDF for general editing tips and suggestions.

General info

Whose work are you reviewing?

User: Turtlegirl33

Link to draft you're reviewing: User:Turtlegirl33/Racial Profiling
Link to the current version of the article (if it exists): Racial profiling

Evaluate the drafted changes

Hi! You definitely have your hands full with a very interestingly written Wikipedia page on Racial Profiling. I see that you added comments about the lead and the body of the article, but I don't see any actual edits to the article. I do agree with all your points, so here are a few suggestions on how to change this interesting Wikipedia article:

I would completely scratch the part about philosophers. I agree that this seems more like an academic essay, rather than a Wikipedia article. The only good thing I can say is that it isn't too biased one way or the other. I don't really understand why they discuss philosophers point of views. It also seems like these philosophers aren't a great source of information. Racial profiling is racial profiling and I don't think there should even be a section on pros and cons of racial profiling. I think most people would agree that racial profiling is wrong. Instead, you can add a section about the court case called Terry vs. Ohio, which allows police officers to stop an individual or vehicle without probable cause if they think and individual is commiting a crime or about to commit a crime (needs reasonable articulable suspicion; traffic violations are a great example). So maybe see what you can find and see if Terry vs. Ohio can lead to racial profiling. I would say to mostly stick with stopping an individual on the street, rather than traffic stops. Most of the time, it is hard to racially profile when you can't even see in the car.
I would also for sure add a section titled "Harmful Consequences of Racial Profiling." That will make this article way better by showing that racial profiling is harmful.
I think you could also add on to the section about racial profiling in the United States. It hardly has any information, and could benefit from some real examples of racial profiling in the U.S., since it is so prominent here. It also ends with some random direct quote from a sociologist, but there is nothing after that is explaining what the quote is.
Also, if you take a look at the section about Sri Lanka, there is a quote that says, "Human rights groups, Local think tank and other observers have termed this act as "ethnic cleansing". The media group said that this type of act reminds people of what "Hitler did to the Jews", and the Asian Center of Human Rights urged India to intervene. I would maybe get rid of this as well. Comparing other events to the Holocaust can be a bit dangerous. Here's a good article on why: [1]
If you focus on some of this stuff, I think you will make this article go from strange to a great Wikipedia article!

Minor changes in the article: change white and black skinned to just whites and blacks. It makes it flow a little better. Also go over the original for grammar issues. There are a few.