User:Lsramirez1

Bio

About me

I'm a High school/College student living in the Pacific Northwest. I dance and paint mainly acrylics but also action painting (or gestural abstraction), I believe expressing your feelings and thoughts trough art is a magnificent way of relieving daily life-routine stress. Another hobbies of mine include hiking and being outdoors. I enjoy the flora and fauna as well as the beautiful landscapes our state has to offer. I sustain an interest and admiration for environmental science and anything nature-related. This science does not only offer us more knowledge regarding the place we live in but it also educate us on how to preserve our environment in the face of human hands.

My Wikipedia interests

If I end up working in Wikipedia over the long term I will use this platform as a positive, constructive, and informational site. I'll probably talk more in depth regarding my interests or even a future career. Anything that I know in depth about with maybe experiences and external information I see interesting and that would back up, contribute to any future ideas/writing.

Article evaluation

Law has always been one of my biggest interests, and since I started studying this field and work towards my major in law I've had the opportunity to learn and gain knowledge regarding this fascinating career. Law can be a very broad field and as known it is constantly changing, which means the best way to succeed is to simultaneously be on top of new adjustments, every add-on, and/or changes. Regarding the field that an individual is focusing on, every platform of information in the internet with a law topic should be as helpful and as informative as it can be, with this in mind I visited the exclusionary rule article on Wikipedia, (which is a rule that prohibits the government from using illegally-obtained evidence against the accused at trial), and found three aspects of it worth commenting on: its lack of citations/resources, its updated information, and its lack of important facts.

Citations

This page lacks a major amount of reliability, it does not include any type of citations proving or backing up the little information provided, apart of the external wiki links in the first sentence, but even if they were to find "reliable" they wouldn't be enough since the wiki links don't provide any additional information regarding the exclusionary rule besides just the meaning of three common words. Although this page does accomplish a satisfactory explanation of what the exclusionary rule is there wouldn't be any way of implanting that this website is reliable since it does not mentioned any other external-trustful source.

Updates

This page was last edited five years ago (12 July, 2015) and as mentioned before it is crucial for a law source to be frequently updated with the constant changes that it brings. Not to mention that this fact doesn't necessarily only fall within the law field, a page would give a more trustworthy imagine if it was constantly accommodated weather it is with extra information, new/recent sources, new updates, etc. Even though the significance of the exclusionary rule will stay the same, there is a possibility of a change, for instance, of how it has been enforced over the past five years.

Incompleteness

Although this page does provide correct information about this constitutional law rule, it does not whatsoever successfully cover considerable aspects that surround this rule such as its history, limitations, pros and cons, among others, as like for example this other exclusionary rule Wikipedia article does. Furthermore, this website lacks information about the exceptions of the exclusionary rule, which are major aspects of understanding when it comes to describing this rule since its exceptions will define weather the rule applies for a case or not.

Summary

Overall, I personally would rate this source "weak" it is important to have present that a source describing such important information within the law field requires the same amount of importance when making it reliable. This source does capture a simple and clear definition for a reader that it just looking for its overall meaning, yet without any cites, more description, and updates it is almost impossible to know if what is being read can be trusted.