Talk:Conviction rate: Difference between revisions
Appearance
Content deleted Content added
No edit summary |
|||
Line 15: | Line 15: | ||
Woah! You can't just strike out the previous sourced statistic of 97 % conviction rate and change it with some podcast, were some lawyer says it is 67, can you? Maybe at least leave both sources for observation? [[Special:Contributions/185.65.134.169|185.65.134.169]] ([[User talk:185.65.134.169|talk]]) 10:21, 22 January 2020 (UTC) |
Woah! You can't just strike out the previous sourced statistic of 97 % conviction rate and change it with some podcast, were some lawyer says it is 67, can you? Maybe at least leave both sources for observation? [[Special:Contributions/185.65.134.169|185.65.134.169]] ([[User talk:185.65.134.169|talk]]) 10:21, 22 January 2020 (UTC) |
||
:Yes I can. The podcast includes explanations from an expert on exactly what the other source got wrong. Do you think a source gets less reliable just because it's not written word on a page? [[User:Amaurea|Amaurea]] ([[User talk:Amaurea|talk]]) 04:53, 23 January 2020 (UTC) |
:Yes I can. The podcast includes explanations from an expert on exactly what the other source got wrong. Do you think a source gets less reliable just because it's not written word on a page? [[User:Amaurea|Amaurea]] ([[User talk:Amaurea|talk]]) 04:53, 23 January 2020 (UTC) |
||
:: An "expert" on a BBC podcast, that will be available on a BBC website only for a year is not a statistic source. Something like "law.ca" or "official-statistics.ca" would have been a proper source, otherwise you just swapped one dubious source with another one. I'd rather cross out the whole section of Canada from the page if there is no official statistics available, rather than write an "expert" opinion. [[Special:Contributions/213.30.233.195|213.30.233.195]] ([[User talk:213.30.233.195|talk]]) |
Revision as of 15:57, 29 January 2020
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Conviction rate article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
![]() | This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
|
![]() | It is requested that an image or photograph of Conviction rate be included in this article to improve its quality. Please replace this template with a more specific media request template where possible.
The Free Image Search Tool or Openverse Creative Commons Search may be able to locate suitable images on Flickr and other web sites. |
Reference 4 is completely inappropriate, as it does NOT present conviction rates at all.
Canada
Woah! You can't just strike out the previous sourced statistic of 97 % conviction rate and change it with some podcast, were some lawyer says it is 67, can you? Maybe at least leave both sources for observation? 185.65.134.169 (talk) 10:21, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
- Yes I can. The podcast includes explanations from an expert on exactly what the other source got wrong. Do you think a source gets less reliable just because it's not written word on a page? Amaurea (talk) 04:53, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
- An "expert" on a BBC podcast, that will be available on a BBC website only for a year is not a statistic source. Something like "law.ca" or "official-statistics.ca" would have been a proper source, otherwise you just swapped one dubious source with another one. I'd rather cross out the whole section of Canada from the page if there is no official statistics available, rather than write an "expert" opinion. 213.30.233.195 (talk)
Categories:
- Stub-Class law articles
- Unknown-importance law articles
- WikiProject Law articles
- Stub-Class Crime-related articles
- Unknown-importance Crime-related articles
- WikiProject Crime and Criminal Biography articles
- Stub-Class Statistics articles
- Unknown-importance Statistics articles
- WikiProject Statistics articles
- Stub-Class United States articles
- Unknown-importance United States articles
- Stub-Class United States articles of Unknown-importance
- WikiProject United States articles
- Stub-Class Japan-related articles
- Unknown-importance Japan-related articles
- WikiProject Japan articles
- Wikipedia requested images of law and crime topics