Talk:Police lineup

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 16 September 2019 and 18 December 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Meadair.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 02:28, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 25 February 2020 and 2 May 2020. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Mackenziecole53. Peer reviewers: Brynneosh, HalleBieber.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 06:50, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments on Introduction Revisions

The emphasis in the introduction on the crucial information for eyewitnesses is a great addition. It is important and rightfully belongs in the introduction, and it also brief enough so as not to overwhelm the reader. I might also recommend adding a note to the last paragraph there ("For evidence from a lineup to be admissible...") on the relevant jurisdictions and regional legal differences regarding this policy.

The additions on alternatives are strong and succinct, tying in evidence supporting police lineups as a more accurate method of identification.

I propose that the "Limitations of technology" be renamed to "limitations of lineups" to better capture the meaning of the section. Jangofett27 (talk) 22:54, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Peer Review

You did a great job, especially adding additional information that was left out.Brynneosh (talk) 00:43, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your addition of DNA evidence under lineup errors was a great change. You could also add some history of the use of DNA evidence and if it is preferred now over police lineups because of its accuracy(HalleBieber (talk) 18:30, 26 April 2020 (UTC)).[reply]

A mistake?

In the Studies section, I see that that the last line currently reads:

"Mistaken rate in target-absent condition: 19% for sequential lineups and 39% for sequential lineups"

Is that line perhaps supposed to read like this?

"Mistaken rate in target-absent condition: 19% for sequential lineups and 39% for simultaneous lineups"

Studies Cutler and Penrod (1988) Brain L. Cutler and Steven D. Penrod conducted this study in 1988 to examine multiple variables' influence on eyewitnesses' accuracy during a lineup. The participants were first given a videotaped store robbery and a questionnaire, then asked to identify the robber in a photo lineup. They were given different videotapes, different lineups, and different instructions. There were 175 participants, all undergraduate college students. The results were: Correct identification rate: 80% for sequential lineups and 76% for simultaneous lineups (total). 78% for sequential lineups and 80% for simultaneous lineups when cues were strong. 84% for sequential lineups and 58% for simultaneous lineups when cues were weak. Mistaken rate in target-absent condition: 19% for sequential lineups and 39% for sequential lineups.

Thanks for checking this. Invertzoo (talk) 17:28, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]