Wikipedia:Peer review/Gun violence in the United States/archive1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Gun violence in the United States

Lately, I have been working on criminology topics which is an area that Wikipedia sorely lacks. Last weekend, I discovered there was no article on "Gun violence", so started one. Most of the research literature pertains to the United States, so the article has become Gun violence in the United States. Obviously, people have strong POV on this topic. To try and rise above politics, I have only included the highest quality reliable sources (mainly peer reviewed, scholarly journals). Personally, I really don't have a POV on this topic, and am staying out of the Gun politics in the United States article. With the gun violence article, I have stayed with presenting the current state of research on this topic. I think is close to featured status, though some "gun rights" folks have already come along and place a neutrality tag on the article. I could really use some peer review on the article, at this point. Do you at all agree with the person who placed the neutrality tag? Any suggestions on making in more NPOV. In reality, I feel that the article deals fairly with both POVs, citing strategies advocated by gun-control folks as ineffective, while citing some strategies advocated by the Bush administration as effective. Do you have any suggestions on improving the article? are there aspects of the topic that are missing? Any help would be greatly appreciated. --Aude (talk) 13:06, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

• Please see automated peer review suggestions here. Thanks, AZ _t 14:43, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Seems like a good article so far, get some external links and sort out that neutrality dispute. Wiki-newbie 17:01, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

The article is fairly comprehensive, clearly written, and well-sourced. It covers an array of issues and represents different viewpoints. The following are some technical things (including some nitpicking) that should be considered for improving the article:

1. Causation is confusing in this section: “Often cited as a cause, is the rise in crack cocaine in cities across the United States. With 17% of deaths in 2002 caused by firearms for those ages 15-19 in the United States, firearms were the second leading cause of death for this age group after motor vehicle accidents.” I get the meaning, but it’s clunky and disjointed here. Should be more clear what exactly crack is causing, and what guns are causing.
2. Some technical writing problems need to be dealt with, such as the random comma in the crack sentence above. Other examples: “type not specified” needs to be in quotation marks. “In contrast, in 1998, the U.K. banned private ownership of handguns, with handgun ownership also prohibited in Japan” is a problematic sentence. This sentence structure, using “,with ____ .” tagged on to the end of the main clause recurs throughout the article, but is a poor construction. Something like: “In contrast, handgun ownership is prohibited in Japan and was similarly banned in the U.K. in 1998” would read better.
3. Phillip J. Cook should be unlinked, unless you are planning to create a stub or article on him. Not all names and authors need to be linked and red links are distracting. There shouldn’t be any in a featured article, IMO.
4. Structure: There are too many sections with only a few sentences. Many of these should be reworked into paragraphs using broader categories. For example, Homicides and suicides could both be under “Death by guns,” or some more suitable heading. The Federal legislation regulation firearms could be a paragraph or two on the “Evolution of federal regulation,” or something similar. It almost reads like a bulleted list as it is, whereas encyclopedia articles should be structured more by the prose itself. Headings are good and necessary, but shouldn’t be used to separate thoughts – paragraphs should do that, with the use of transition sentences for continuity.
5. Note 38 needs a full citation.
6. The introduction could probably be expanded more, and is also an opportunity to delineate the scope of the article. I’d avoid using statistics in this section.
7. As for the most contentious issue, NPOV, I don’t think that tag is at all warranted. The language is not NPOV, and the article presents both gun rights and gun control viewpoints on fairly equal terms. I perused the talk page and I don’t find that anyone there gave a convincing explanation as to why it’s non-neutral, let alone the extreme “this is the worst case I’ve ever seen” assertions some made. One possibility might be to gather the info into clear sections, gun rights and gun control advocates, and devote a paragraph or two, of equal length, and do your best to encapsulate each position. That’s my “assume good faith” suggestion; you might want to consider some sort of mediation by an administrator if it ends up being plain obstructionism based on political differences. Mind you, it is a new article, and if the NPOV crowd does some editing instead of just barking on the talk page, it might just be a matter of time before it gets worked out to everyone’s satisfaction. Bobanny 19:29, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
8. Woof, woof. :-) Have attempted to work the NPOV issues instead of just "barking" on the talk page, mostly to do with the choice of words in key places. As it now appears that the NPOV issues have largely been put to bed, have removed the NPOV tagline. It may go back if someone objects and puts it back, but I think the NPOV tone is greatly improved from where it was even a couple of days ago. Yaf 01:25, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for all these suggestions and critique. Number 3 and 5 are addressed, so far. I will try and work on the others tomorrow and/or Sunday. Please keep the critique and suggestions coming. Thanks. --Aude (talk) 23:11, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Number 1 and 6 have been dealt with, and copyedits made to make the article read better. (I think) I'm not sure about number 4. Personally, I think more headings help improve readability of text on the web. Most people are not going to read the entire article, word for word, but will scan the page to find specific sections that interest them. Headings help facilitate skimming and scanning. [1] --Aude (talk) 22:01, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

The article could use a little more of a conversational tone. I see this only because I have been critiqued for this very issue myself in the past. The article has plenty of facts and figures and all I can say is try to be more expressive...but what I like about the article is that is is to the point, without a lot of "fluff" and simple jargon. Just a few other points:

• What is the most popular handgun used in crime. (not delienated, but interviewed violent offenders routinely state that large caliber handguns are preferred)[2] and over 25% of all law enforcement officer murders were from the use of a .38 caliber weapon..."
• Further evaluation of denied gun purchases due to failure to meet gun ownership rights (California results in a period)[3]

I'll see what else I can dig up.--MONGO 07:09, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Have added the top 10 list of guns involved in crime. Strangely enough, semi-auto's are not the preferred firearms. Yaf 06:12, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

• Introduction: Is gun violence a great public concern in non-urban areas? Does the footnote really support that the public is particularly concerned about youth/gang gv, or is there a better citation than can establish this? The examples cited which "help to fuel debate" mostly aren't youth/gang related, except for Columbine. Also, how long has gv been a "great public concern." (Prior to the assassination of MLK? If so, the examples might not be representative or might not be broad enough, consider adding/changing). Kaisershatner 16:06, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Have added an historical perspective to article (assassinations and attempted assassinations of U.S. Presidents, along with a few other notables) that supports the view that gun violence is not a new phenomenon in the U.S. Yaf 05:22, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Yaf, thanks for the additions, I think they make a major difference. Now, I didn't want to remove 6 footnotes from the intro, but this sentence: "The homicide rate in the United States of America is higher than that of other developed countries, while rates of robbery, assault, and property crime are comparable.[4][5][6][7][8][9]" is NOT about gun violence. It is indirectly relevant, since I assume the author is trying to make the connection between the high rate of US homicides and US gun policy or something, but I'm not sure it belongs in the introduction, and the paragraph works without it - it would otherwise state 68% of homicides are committed with guns, without getting into whether US homicide rates being comparatively high. The article isn't about the homicide rate. Kaisershatner 17:53, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Probably don't need all those references in the intro, but it's important to point out that U.S. crime rates are similar to those of other countries; the major exception is the U.S. homicide rate. The major factor for this difference/exception is the rate of homicides committed with firearms in the U.S., which is higher than other developed countries. --Aude (talk) 19:03, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Hi - maybe this should be moved to talk? There's no way to know what the "major factor" is - it might be that if there were strict gun control laws the homicide rate would be the same but knives would be used instead. Or maybe it would be lower. But it's an assertion that gun violence per se is the difference - or am I wrong? I often am. Kaisershatner 20:09, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

The difference for what? For why the U.S. homicide rate is higher? In the intro, I think noting the higher homicide rate and the rate of homicides committed with firearms is important. We can save "why" for later in the article, such as the "Homicides" section where it says "When a crime occurs involving a gun, the likelihood that it results in a death is significantly increased, due to the lethal potential that a gun brings to a situation." and "that if guns were less available, criminals may likely commit the crime anyway but with less-lethal weapons". (if you want to move this to the talk page, that's fine with me) --Aude (talk) 20:40, 14 November 2006 (UTC)