Organic Group: Kendall Bausch, Natalie Mantoura, Alena Plascencia

Peer Review for Solitary Confinement

Ethical Research

Throughout the paper there is sufficient evidence that outside sources have been implemented, and a

generally good grasp on paraphrasing vs. direct quotations. However, there are some issues with the

Works Cited page and two of the in text citations. In the Works Cited page, there is listed a Mary

Corcoran and Elizabeth Palermo, where I do not see referenced directly any of the paragraphs. Also, there

is a direct quotation in text given credit to Haney, Shaley, and Greist, which is not listed in the reference

page. Lastly, one direct quotation under The physiological effects on solitary confinement seems to be

missing its reference. Keep in mind that references that are not cited in text cannot be included in the

Works Cited, to put the authors Haney, Shaley, and Greist on it, and make sure each citation contains

the proper components.

Organization

Overall the organization is done very well, and seems to transition nicely from section to section. The

definition is broken up into easy to read categories, but may need more expansion to extend the paper to

meet the page minimum, but this can be easily done by adding another category or so. The history section

ending with bringing up the dangers of solitary confinement gives the secondary sections of Physiological

and Psychological effects a smooth introduction.

Design

Although the works design does implement some of the Wikipedia style such as captions by the graphics,

it uses a traditional APA format in the citations and the referenced work. Most of the work uses a

paraphrasing technique like in the History of Solitary Confinement Section rather than direct quotations

and uses broken down sections, also conforming to a more traditional Wikipedia entry. Overall, the work
seems to be a blend of Wikipedia qualities while looking like more of a regular paper rather than an

online entry.