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

[edit] Instructions

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



  1. Fill out the request on the subpage, then add the tag below to the banner on the article talk page: {{Law enforcement|peer-review=yes}}
  2. Update listed peer reviews at Portal:Criminal justice/Things you can do.
  3. 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] United States 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
  1. Youth Offending Team is well written in the respect that if a reader (or even a young offender) wanted to know the processes of the YOT, he or she would have a very accurate idea. The introduction introduces the article extremely well, so no improvement is needed there. The article is laid out very well with sections and then sub-sections, which also follows the manual of style. The article does not alway explain what technical terms mean, like "reprimand", the article only tells the reader what happens if a youth is given a reprimand, there is however a link to the word reprimand explaining what it means in a separate article.
  2. The article has references some of which come from an official YOT leaflet while others are on the YOT website. There is no evidence in this article of original research.
  3. The YOT article address the aspects of the topic and the article stays focused and the subject and does giving unnecessary details.
  4. The article is written in Neutral point of view, which benefits the article and all views are presented fairly and without bias.
  5. The article is stable, there are no major changes each day, and there has been no edit wars, this article has never been in our (WP:LE) article watch list which is a good sign.
  6. The article contains 2 images of the YOT office in Somerset, taken by the author SGGH, and and a flow diagram showing the procedures of a Youth Offending Team which is created by the author SGGH.

Overall good article, hope one day it will be FA status

Dep. Garcia ( Talk | Help Desk | Complaints ) 12:40, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] New Jersey Transit Police Department

Hello all, I'm new to this WikiProject and to Wikipedia itself. I've created a page about the New Jersey Transit Police Department and I was wondering if I could get a peer review from the people in this project. I would greatly appreciate comments and constructive criticism. Seeing how this is my first artice I still have quite a bit to learn! (Rebel3986 03:15, 28 August 2007 (UTC))

  • include the acronym (NJTPD) in the bold font in the name in the first sentence
  • sentence case headings (e.g., “Primary Function” => “Primary function”)
  • actually, just “Mission” might be a more effective heading in that particular case
  • Constitutional =>constitutional, “the Department” => “the department”
  • delete “Today” as the first word in the history section (it’s redundant with “is”)
  • remove “current” from the authorized strength section (and generally avoid such words that indicate the present, since that can be assumed)
  • last sentence of history: “the New Jersey Transit Police are [is] responsible…”
  • consider shrinking the tower photo closer to the same size as the others, so it doesn’t visually dominate the page
  • consider using templates for the citations
  • could probably use a few more wikilinks, such as police dog, Essex County, Penn Station, Crown Victoria, etc (and note the disambiguation in some of these links)
  • de-link all but the first use of Newark
  • fiddle with the photo placing a little bit; they probably shouldn’t go into the “see also” section
  • alphabetize categories and “see also” list
  • Over-all, it looks great, especially for a newbie editor and a fresh article. Most of these comments are nit-picks. Reads well, lots of info and photos. Could be expanded with more 3rd party sources, and more citations for some of what’s already there (even for things you know from first hand), such as the second half of the first “Criticisms and issues” paragraph. I suggest fixing these things up and nominating it as good article candidate (but maybe read the good article criteria first) if you want to take it further. bobanny 07:09, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
Another slight nit-pick from me, with your references you have forgotten to add the second bracket to close them off, so you are left with [www.sjkdojo.com Article title retrieved at... etc. I will go and fix the ones in the article but I thought I would mention it here first so refs you use in the future will work better :) a great first article! I rarely see a self-proclaimed-newbie creating such a well rounded article, adding all the features his or herself. SGGH speak! 12:39, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
I've redone the article with the suggestions that have been listed above, If you guys have the time maybe take another look and see if the article is shaping up to Good Article standards Rebel3986 13:23, 29 August 2007 (UTC)


[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}}