User talk:Paul.mott/sandbox

For all of you: nice start! This will be a tough article to work with, since there is a lot of material and it's messy. But you have a lot of good ideas for making it better. Finally, you should all learn to do proper reference citations. See WP:CQR and the brochure Editing Wikipedia that I handed out in class for instructions. If you are editing in the sandbox using the visual editor, there is a drop down textbox that makes citations easy.

The reference section is a dog's breakfast. Mixes up reference info with footnotes. I would move the footnoted information into the main article, and just leave the reference info.

For Kathleen: I agree that the bios are too long. They distract from the main point of the article. Editing would help here. Also, if there are existing Wikipedia articles on any of these folks, just link to them.

For Paul: The TOC is automatically generated from the headings in the article. If it does not follow the TOC, that would be because the text does not match the headings. Edit for consistency.

For Tim: You have not signed your contribution with the 4 ~s. Remember to do this in the future so you get credit for your work. When you start a line with a space, that's what makes the grayed out area. Regarding sections, it's not a matter of too few or too many. Each section should be coherent and add to the article. A good introduction or lead section should summarize the whole article. See WP:lead.

For Britanny: I think the article is pretty complete. The main thing it needs is better editing for organization and readability.

I also think that it needs work on details. The new articles your group has listed have good information that should be incorporated. I may have mentioned this before, but the FBI website has an important document that is not mentioned. https://vault.fbi.gov/Criminal%20Profiling.

J.R. Council (talk) 04:30, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nice start!

Hi Group 11 -- you've made a good start on your article. The outline is excellent! You have a different task than usual for this assignment, since there is already a lengthy article on your topic. Getting it organized is just as important than adding new material, and a good outline is essential. Good luck with your leads!

Just one problem: You have not stated your personal commitments to completing the tasks required for this article.

J.R. Council (talk) 05:48, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Lead Draft Feedback

Brittany - I am impressed by how much you summarized in such a short space. I do, however, have two questions: 1. Your content differed considerably from the outline. Do you have an alternate outline we should use? 2. Related query - were omissions of history and bios intentional? When I did my first draft, I tried to at least introduce all of the outline content; yours is a nice contrast. You and I have given examples of long and short leads, so I look forward to seeing how this develops. Paul.mott (talk) 13:44, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Kathy - One of the original issues with the article was concern (I think Ian was the one who mentioned it) about balance. One thing I remember from Wikipedia guidelines is neutrality - I have to watch for my own bias. Is there perhaps a different way to word how the media portrayal has fed into the controversy?Paul.mott (talk) 00:37, 28 October 2015 (UTC) Paul-Your lead seems very long. I thought this was supposed to just cover what we wanted to show up during google search...? Is there a way to pare it down to more of a general summary? Bansheend (talk) 01:37, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Paul - The answer to your questions: Some of the stuff I hadn't addressed in my lead from the outline I was kind of waiting to see what kind of info we are going to keep and add. I like that you had a lot of introductory information in your lead but I still think it is a little too long. I think we should be using about one or two sentences to touch on each area of the article to get readers interested and then they will look further into the article for more information. I also think we need to get rid of the bulleted sections by putting that information into a one sentence summary like I had tried to do. Brittany.paulus (talk) 02:42, 28 October 2015 (UTC) I think you both make valid points. I will see what I can do with the length by the end of the day. One part I'm struggling with is: since one of the criteria for a good lead is "Can it stand alone?" how often, and at what points if any, is it appropriate to say "see below for details" or to have a link to internal article content (which I'm not sure yet how to do).Paul.mott (talk) 12:02, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have made considerable changes, but may need to adjust the outline for consistency. I think we, as a group, need to confirm what content we want to include, how extensively we wish to change the existing article, and who, precisely, will do what. Tim, I saw the same brevity in your lead submission as in the others. Bear in mind that Dr. Council told us a full rewrite is bad Wikipedia etiquette, but Ian and other editors have suggested that comprehensive changes are needed. I have experience as a law firm proofreader and with professional writing and revisions, as well as a background in social work and emergency management including 15 years of civilian volunteering with law enforcement victim services and victimology, so I could focus on the overall edits, footnotes/references sorting, and distinctions/media/etc. Since Brittany is also studying criminology, she seems a logical choice for the "what is it and how does it work" topics, and I do not know about your specific interests or expertise, Tim and Kathy. We lost points for not claiming specific tasks on assignment five, and this would help me also to narrow my focus. Paul.mott (talk) 18:47, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I am okay taking the definitions section of what it is and how it works. I am questioning the notable profilers section, do we need to have bios on that many people or could we narrow it down to maybe the top two or three? Brittany.paulus (talk) 17:31, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Feedback on Assignment 6

General comment This is a really great start on a challenging project! I like the detailed feedback that Paul and Brittany are providing. A good starting point for the next assignment would be to create kind of a hybrid between Paul and Brittany's contributions.

For Paul: Your lead section is very well written and organized. It could almost stand alone as an article. However, it is much too long and detailed. Remember that the lead not only should summarize the article to follow, but should grab the readers' attention and make them want go on to the rest of the article. Don't take "Can it stand alone?" too literally. Remember, every reader will know that the fine details will follow. As far as internal links are concerned, those will essentially be found in the Contents box that is automatically generated from the section headings. I think you could cut your lead by 1/2 or even 2/3 and still have a very good introduction.

For Brittany: I think your lead could be a bit more detailed, and like Paul says, it could follow the outline more closely. That said, it is written and organized very well, and is succinct and interesting. I would want to read more after reading this far.

For Kathy: I'm glad you followed up my suggestion to read the FBI document. However, starting the lead with the FBI is too narrow a focus. Nicely written though, and worth including in the main body of the article. There is a more 'elegant' way to link the FBI document to the article. See Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Linking - go to section on external links.

For Tim: Nice job! Like Brittany's lead, it needs more detail, but is well-written and interesting.

Unfortunately, you did not complete the assignment. I can't see where you provided any feedback to another group member.

J.R. Council (talk) 03:24, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

For Dr. Council: Are we supposed to be rewording what is already a part of the article or leaving what people have already written and just incorporating it into what we are adding? Brittany.paulus (talk) 21:49, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If what is in the article is poorly written, you should feel free to edit. I would just edit directly on the main article, if it's a simple correction of grammar or spelling, for example. If you're talking about adding new content, you should work around what's already in the article. Don't copy something into the sandbox, add to it, and then copy that block back over to the main article. J.R. Council (talk) 17:43, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If it's necessary to replace a section and you can't figure out any way to work around what's there, do what you need to do. However, remember for right now, all your work should be in Paul's sandbox. Ian will need to look at it before you make changes to the main article. J.R. Council (talk) 17:46, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I added some links to existing articles for the profilers' bios. I think they are still too long as they are not the topic of the article. Also added some comments in italics. I didn't want to just make changes to the work that had already been done. Bansheend (talk) 04:30, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Kathy, Do you think that doing the profilers section as more of an overview of the different people with links embedded would work better? I'm currently typing up a draft to show you what I mean. Timbreid542 (talk) 16:05, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I did some editing to the definitions section and added the information I had found. I like the combined lead section that Paul came up with. I would like to add some more to the history section about the very beginnings of offender profiling but I haven't been able to come up with any sources for that. Brittany.paulus (talk) 01:55, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I was looking for more info for the history section and found that what was taken from the original wiki article for the section titled "CURRENT PRACTICE " repeats almost verbatim an article from Monitor on Psychology posted on the APA website, without a citation. Is this something we should include? Bansheend (talk) 08:00, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Criminal profiling: the reality behind the myth Forensic psychologists are working with law enforcement officials to integrate psychological science into criminal profiling. By LEA WINERMAN Monitor Staff July/August 2004, Vol 35, No. 7 Print version: page 66

I wrote up a shorter version of the Notable Profilers section that condenses the different profilers into one section. I also added citations and links to the profilers' articles. I also left the separate profiles to compare to. What do you guys think? Timbreid542 (talk) 17:05, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Kathy, I reworked the phases of profiling section that you were referring to as well as added the citation. I made Current Practice its own section and will work to break down the lists after class. Timbreid542 (talk) 17:40, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Tim, I really like the overview version of the profilers. It's a lot better than the lengthy version. Bansheend (talk) 06:36, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Dr. Council's comments on Assignment 7

Hi Group 11. You are doing a great job in cleaning up this messy article! It is very well-written. This will be a distinct improvement when you incorporate the changes into the main article. Here are some comments/suggestions on how to proceed from here: 1. Lead: This seems to be a good length for the article, and provides an excellent overview. I can see there are some details and references left to add in. One specific suggestion -- in the sentence, "Notable profilers in history include Langer, Brussel, Teten, ...." Use their full names.

This section needs proper reference citations.

2. Definitions: This is quite good, except the example of the Green River Killer at the end does not fit with definitions. This should be moved to another section or deleted. I would actually end this section with the preceding paragraph.

The list of BAU and FBI six stages is also not a definition. I would move this to the Current practice section.
The section beginning "In modern criminology" and ending, "third wave is the study of the psyche of the criminal." should be the intro to the history section that follows.
I'm not sure what the last sentence means: "While these terms may be used interchangeable and may be part of the same process, offender profiling is an investigative tool not exactly like any other."

3. History: The parts of this section seem disconnected and spotty. Is this all that happened leading up to Brussel? Also, I think Brussel did more than just the MB profile. Can you tie this section together better, make it flow? 4. Current practice: I agree that there are too many numbered/bulleted lists. These could be summarized in text paragraphs. If you keep lists, make them consistent. Use Wikipedia formatting, # at the beginning of a line for numbers, or * for bullets. 5. Notable Profilers: I like this section the way it is. 6. Problems: There is a lot of unbroken text in this section. Can you either condense it or organize by subsections?

This section needs proper reference citations.

Once again, nice job on a difficult project. J.R. Council (talk) 21:04, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Final version process

I checked the original article references tonight and found some missing and some that no longer exist in an accessible format. I also found some that may fill in gaps. I expect to be on campus around 10 tomorrow morning (after a 9am appointment) do I can make those changes and/or additions before class. Please let me know before then if you know of any areas that also need cites and/or footnotes or updates. I'm also planning on, if time allows, editing for smooth flow, syntax/grammar, and to make sure our pieces match the outline. It looks good, folks.Paul.mott (talk) 04:58, 20 November 2015 (UTC) Paul.mott (talk) 04:58, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There are 3 people referred to w/o their full names; Canter, Turco and Capson. What are their first names? Shouldn't they be included? Also, I did a strike through on the first paragraph of the history section: there are 2 names here that don't seem to be related to anything else. I moved around the bits that Dr. Council suggested belonged elsewhere. Bansheend (talk) 05:10, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Library closed at 5. I still have some footnotes to add and correct, Then I will take another look at how polished it is.Paul.mott (talk) 22:42, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

We need to decide on which version of the Notable Profilers we are using and get rid of the other. Also, has anyone emailed Dr. Council yet? Brittany.paulus (talk) 04:58, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Assignment 8 decision

Hi Group 11. Again, you've done a great job cleaning up a messy article. As it stands, the article is still long, but I think it reads well. I am sending this on to Ian at WikiEd for his comments and recommendations. J.R. Council (talk) 02:35, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Feedback

Nice work, though to be honest, since the existing article is already so long it can be challenging to figure out what your changes are. Overall though, it looks good - your improvement to the lead really makes a difference in the article, while the fact that you seem to be trimming the sections about the featured profilers is a good idea. You should check their individual bios though, and think about whether any of the material you're trimming from this article might better be moved to those articles. Ian (Wiki Ed) (talk) 17:50, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Time to Publish!

This all looks very good. As I've said before, you've taken on a very challenging article, and have really improved it. Now, since the original article is long and messy, it will be another challenge to move your rewrite into the main space for the article. Be sure to read and follow the instructions on Blackboard following Assignment 9 on how move the article over to main space. Congratulations! J.R. Council (talk) 22:29, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]