Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

cbarrettg OP t1_jeb6cxi wrote

Sources: https://www.bop.gov/about/statistics/ , https://www.sentencingproject.org/ , https://www.prisonstudies.org/highest-to-lowest/prison_population_rate?field_region_taxonomy_tid=All

Tools: Tableau, Adobe Illustrator

3

allthenewsfittoprint t1_jecb693 wrote

How does this data account for federal prisons, or persons imprisoned in other states in facility sharing agreements?

3

kompootor t1_jeewjbt wrote

Terrific job with attribution on the image! (In case you haven't been here this month, I'm kinda big on this.) What I particularly like is that you note the different years for data being used on each chart, which is a detail that is frequently omitted in this sub. (Although it appears you forgot to do this for the map at the bottom of prisoners/100k; it's not a huge deal because that stat is widely published, and the rest of the charts are dated; no visualization or other work gets everything perfect without multiple reviews anyway.)

The graphical layout seems more appealing to me than I'd expect. Normally I'd be put off by such a monochromatic color scheme, but since all your charts are displaying raw or scaled N with color (Except the top right, which doesn't do the gradient), it's actually an appropriate use. It looks aesthetically well-balanced taken from a distance, which is impressive for having 6 charts in there.

I do think the text is excessive however. Descriptions in plain-size font can be fine and great. (That is long as your users are reasonably expected to be able to read it -- so a visualization like this would be have a modified form if put into a slideshow, say, probably by separating each chart onto individual slides and reducing/summarizing the side text as full-size bullet points.) However, I think your descriptions are unnecessarily lengthened with your own interpretations of the data that may not be clearly demonstrated within the visualization alone, especially the introductory text. What you state affirmatively on the visualization should be reasonably supported by what is presented, and of course, since it's a visualization, you want a maximum of "show, don't tell". (There are several arguments you make that can only be supported by a detailed analysis going far beyond the charts given here; if you really feel the need to reference one or two of those arguments it would be more authoritative if you write something like "... and this is likely caused by such-and-such [Smith & Payne 2015]", or a numerical superscript, with additional source cited in the corner (a shorthand citation is fine for this kind of thing).)

Hope this can be useful. Very nice job overall.

2