User talk:Jazz Davis/sandbox
Notes
[edit]Hi all! Here are my notes:
Background
[edit]- Try to be specific about dates. The section says that a person was convicted, but didn't give the date of the conviction. Also, if possible try to find where Shackleton was murdered and add that to the article.
- Some of the sentences need to be tweaked for flow since they come across a little clunky.
- I noticed that the section here and the article use different words, such as attorney vs lawyer. Since this is put in quotations, make sure that you have the right quote. If you don't have an exact quote, it's better to write something like "Davis made an ambiguous request for a lawyer, however when asked by the interviewers to clarify his intentions, Davis responded that he did not want counsel." This makes it a little more straightfoward, especially if there is some question as to what was exactly said. It may seem a little nitpicky, but direct statements are something to be careful about in general because you want to make sure the quote is correct.
Related cases
[edit]I would be very careful about what you place here. As you've stated, there are a lot of cases that deal with the same topic. This then brings up the question as to which cases should be mentioned. I'd limit this to cases where they bring up Davis's case during the court case or cases that have Wikipedia articles. This otherwise runs the risk of being considered original research in how the cases were chosen. In general Wikipedia doesn't have many sections like this that, as they tend to either be "see also" sections that go to other articles or they discuss instances where a specific case was brought up by the counsel during the course of the trial. It's not that you can't have it, just that you need to be careful about what goes in here.
Opinion of the court
[edit]This is fine, but I would summarize it a little more for length. I'd also try to tie the last paragraph into the overall topic more - at present it seems like it's something that the Justice espoused in general rather than in their judgement to the case. Also, you need to change the gender terms for the Justice, as Justice O'Connor is a woman - Sandra Day O'Connor.
Linguistics of the court
[edit]This is original research, which can't be added to Wikipedia. You should only include a section like this if someone has specifically covered the speaking styles used by people involved in the case. While this is well written, this is not something that should be added to the main article. We can only include content that has been explicitly stated in the source material.
General notes
[edit]In general the work here is fine - just make sure to be careful about sourcing as all content should have sourcing that backs up the claims in the article. Most of the sections didn't have this, so it needs to be added in before the work goes live. Also, make sure that you remove your signatures before moving the work live as well. Shalor (Wiki Ed) (talk) 16:31, 27 March 2018 (UTC)
Hi guys, these are my comments:
General Notes
[edit]First of all, very good work! I see that you all have contributed to the article and added quite a bit to each of the sections you chose to work on. As we all know, wikipedia is very strict when it comes to giving credit to the original author and close paraphrasing. Thus it is very important to include in-text citations showing where the ideas and information came from. This is done rather well in the Linguistics of the Case section, but not done at all in the previous ones. I am sure it should be a simple fix since you probably have the sources where your information came from and from there it should not take too long to add in-text citations and footnotes. Also, it is strongly recommended to use multiple sources to ensure the validity of your presented information, possibly making it easier to state neutral facts only.
Background
[edit]Well done! This paragraph stays rather neutral and stating facts only (assuming that they are from reliable sources). The language and logic are clear, and few grammar mistakes were made. The only issue I feel is that the last sentence is a little confusing. I don't really understand what it is trying to convey and hence could possibly be difficult for others as well.
Related Cases
[edit]It is very nice that other similar cases were included (linking them would be great). That definitely helps with understanding the situation. I am a little bit unsure if it is a fact that the "AAVE meaning of 'dog' was misunderstood". Adding sources to back it up would certainly be helpful. Language and logic are concise and clear.
Opinion of the Court
[edit]The content of this section is mostly neutral and seems to be stating only facts (again having citations is crucial). But assuming the sources will be cited, the language is clear and concise and ideas are clearly conveyed. The only issue I have is in the last sentence. What do you mean when you state that "he believes that the Miranda Rights are sufficient to surpass ['fear, intimidation, and lack of knowledge']"? That was a little confusing for me. Otherwise great job!
Linguistics of the Case
[edit]First of all, well done on the in-text citations. It is crucial to have them and adds to the credibility of your statements. The content of this section is rather neutral and clearly presents the three different approaches in language that can be easily understood. The last sentence certainly needs to be cited (a claim about preference of the Unitate States court system can hardly be a personal idea). Otherwise very well done! Marc XuZhou (talk) 02:37, 2 April 2018 (UTC)