Wikipedia:WikiProject Law Enforcement/Peer review

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This page is set aside for peer review requests made to the Law Enforcement Wikiproject. The primary objective of a peer review is to encourage better articles by having contributors who may not have worked on articles to examine them and provide ideas for further improvement.

The peer review process is highly flexible and can deal with articles of any quality; however, requesting reviews on very short articles may not be productive, as there is little for readers to comment on.

All reviews are conducted by fellow editors—usually members of the Law Enforcement WikiProject. When articles are tagged for peer review, they are placed in this category, and when the review is completed and they can be found in this category.

Contents 1 Instructions 2 Article list 2.1 U.S. Capitol shooting incident (1998) 2.2 Police brutality 2.3 Youth Offending Team 3 Instructions for reviewers

[edit] Instructions

To create a request, please press the button below, adding the article name where indicated.

Fill out the request on the subsubpage, then add the tag below to the banner on the article talk page:

{{Law enforcement|peer-review=yes}}

And finally, add the article to the request list below by copying in the following: {{Wikipedia:WikiProject Law Enforcement/Peer review/Name of nominated article}}

[edit] Article list

[edit] U.S. Capitol shooting incident (1998)

I created this article following the debacle over whether to delete the John Gibson (police officer) article, which was kept. I decided to create an article which emphasizes the entire Capitol shooting incident of 1998, rather than the three seperate article which existed speaking to the lives of the two slain officers and the shooter. The article should be pretty well cited, but I would like some other editors to take a look at it. Thus far, I have had no help in creating it. There are enough sources on the web to make this a feature article in my opinion, but I think making it an A class or Good article article is a start (BTW, I self-assessed as a B class). Please provide comments and edits that you feel would be appropriate, but please cite your source in the reference section. Cheers, Daysleeper47 15:34, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

• Comments

A review based on the format at the bottom of this page:

1. It is well written. There are a few commas that could be put in in places, however brilliant prose isn't such a necessity in an article which is heavily based on fact (as opposed to a very long article on a larger topic which requires a bit more of a brush stroke when it comes to prose). No major spelling or grammar problems leap out at me. Plenty of wiki links. Possibly the "After the shooting" made to flow a little more, as it is a little bullet-point-ish.

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable plenty of references. However the phrase "Many of Weston's neighbours had disliked him, and often ignored him rather than communicate" might need a citation.

3. broad in its coverage No un-needed details leap out at me (isn't going to be a problem due tot he article size anyway). There's nothing I'm lacking in after reading it, did the shooter plan to assassinate the congressman though? He went into his office, but the motive is "mental insanity". Perhaps clarification?

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy I can't see any POV problems, there is no "heroic police officer" statements or "unstable sicko of a gunman" and so on.

5. stable the article is not being changed rapidly by anyone other than you, no streams of reverts or anything.

6. It contains images, where possible, to illustrate the topic Good use of images, of the plaque and both officers. I am not too hot on the copyright side of things so another user might have to check that the images are okay.

All in all, good work. Covers every aspect as far as I can see. A couple of gaps in motive which could be clarified, make it flow a little more in a couple of sections. Possibly some of the introduction could be transposed into a section on "the shooting". Hope these comments are helpful, I'm sure another user will be around to add more. SGGH 17:21, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Police brutality

I'm having a hard time with improving this article because of very limited feedback, despite an RfC. I would rather work collaboratively on such a controversial subject. Any extra eyes, thoughts, and contributions would be appreciated. Thanks. --Ginkgo100 ^talk 21:25, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

• Comments

I've copied the criteria from below into this review. Due to the fact that there are members of this wikiproject more experienced in policing matters than myself, i will defer to their future judgement regarding content, and will deal specifically with issues relating to the... "wikipedia-ness" of the article.

1. It is well written. In this respect:

(a) The middle of the introduction could flow slightly better, I feel. While the first paragraph of the alleged corruption section may be a tad difficult to follow, the remaining two paragraphs are well written. The remainder of the article does also appear well written and flows well, good English overall. (b) The overall sections are broken down cleanly, with a nice set of examples, good see alsos and references. The alleged corruption section, going from a large heading, through a good set of text, to two minor headings of politics and investigation, don't flow into each other totally comfortably, possible reorganisation there I feel. (c) good style, no obvious issues that I can see, theres a good number of inter-links (d) There isn't too much jargon that needs explaining that I feel, though I am aware that because of my police knowledge (such that it is) I may be taking some knowledge for granted where a less informed person may not know.

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable. In this respect:

(a) A good list of references! Excellent, the references problem is all to common in this project at the moment, glad to see this article deals with that. (b) References and citations are set up correctly, (c) Sources seem reliable, some published works on the topic, very good. (d) need to take care of that 'citation needed'

3. It is broad in its coverage. In this respect :

(a) While there may be section headings for each aspect, they all need expanding i feel, everything under alleged corruption. For instance, under the heading of 'Human rights', there are two lines, but surely the whole issue breaks down to human rights? More details of the 2005 reports discoveries? Each section needs expansion I'm afraid. (b) Difficult to evaluate whether there is any non-useful triva, or whether the writing strays, as the level of content is moderate in places. Though i have to say, i agree with certain comments on the talk page that the Abuse infobox seems a little unnecessary.

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy. In this respect:

(a) the language maintains neutrality on the whole. NPOV can be difficult in articles such as these, a good tactic is to make sure the use of words such as "alleged" or "cases of suspected police brutality" to soften certain statements. (b) Are there couter arguements to excessive police force? The old 'they are criminals who cares' type stance? 5. The article does seem to be changing quite rapidly, 10-15 edits in the last few days from a number of users, however this observation isn't particularly helpful unless you are looking for GA or A class nomination, for which stability is a criteria.

6. It contains images, where possible, to illustrate the topic. In this respect:

(a) One image! Images are always strongly encouraged. Not only does it help visualise the topic, but they break up the text for the casual reader, though they may be difficult at the moment to obtain, with expansion of the article more opportunities for images may present themselves, for instance the image of an officer reknown for brutality. (b) the image has the correct legislation.

I hope this helps. Another more informed member will hopefully lend their expertise when it comes to the detailed content, however thats my take on the wikipedia side of things.SGGH 22:11, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments. I am planning to reorganize the article somewhat since nobody has objected to my proposal on the talk page. I would really like to do something with the list of individual cases. I think it would be most encyclopedic to list just a few well-chosen notable cases. --Ginkgo100 ^talk 19:46, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

That's always a good approach, you can always put a link to a "victims of police brutality" catagory in you 'see also' section, so people can have access to every individual case if they so wish.--SGGH 11:13, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Youth Offending Team

I created this article a long time ago after working with them for a couple of months, and am hoping to boost it beyond B class. SGGH 21:05, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

• Comments

[edit] Instructions for reviewers

If you are choosing to review an article listed above, it is suggested that the following criteria form a basis of your review.

1. It is well written. In this respect:

(a) it has compelling prose, and is readily comprehensible to non-specialist readers;

(b) it follows a logical structure, introducing the topic and then grouping together its coverage of related aspects; where appropriate, it contains a succinct lead section summarising the topic, and the remaining text is organised into a system of hierarchical sections (particularly for longer articles);

(c) it follows the Wikipedia Manual of Style including the list guideline;

(d) necessary technical terms or jargon are briefly explained in the article itself, or an active link is provided.

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable. In this respect:

(a) it provides references to any and all sources used for its material;

(b) the citation of its sources using an accepted form of inline citation is required (this criterion is disputed by editors on Physics and Mathematics pages who have proposed a subject-specific guideline on citation, as well as some other editors — see talk page);

(c) sources should be selected in accordance with the guidelines for reliable sources;

(d) it contains no elements of original research.

3. It is broad in its coverage. In this respect :

(a) it addresses all major aspects of the topic (this requirement is slightly weaker than the "comprehensiveness" required by WP:FAC, and allows shorter articles and broad overviews of large topics to be listed);

(b) it stays focused on the main topic without going into unnecessary details (no non-notable trivia).

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy. In this respect:

(a) viewpoints are represented fairly and without bias;

(b) all significant points of view are fairly presented, but not asserted, particularly where there are or have been conflicting views on the topic.

5. It is stable, i.e. it does not change significantly from day to day and is not the subject of ongoing edit wars. This does not apply to vandalism and protection or semi-protection as a result of vandalism, or proposals to split/merge the article content.

6. It contains images, where possible, to illustrate the topic. In this respect:

(a) the images are tagged and have succinct and descriptive captions;

(b) any non-free images have a fair use rationale

Once you have reviewed an article, and you are sure the person asking for the review is happy, please change the tag on the talk page of the article in question to:

{{law enforcement|old-peer-review=yes}}