Talk:Chicago Alternative Policing Strategy

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Chicago  
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Chicago, which aims to improve all articles or pages related to Chicago or the Chicago metropolitan area.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
 

Neutrality?[edit]

This article appears to me to be written by a PR department. I don't really want to put that tag on the article though, as it does seem to be well written and so on. It just seems, ... Well it doesn't have any criticisms for one.

A template that might have been better to use might have been this one http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Primarysources


I would start a criticisms section, except I know nothing of the topic, and I don't know the template (and can't find it either) for sections that need attention. ~AFA Imagine I swore. 03:23, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Dropping some stuff off at talk[edit]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Chicago Alternative Policing Strategy. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:36, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

BL&D Peer Review[edit]

To start, I have to say you did a really good job of not only adding sources, but reliable ones. I see that the article was very much lacking before, so that's a great contribution.

Implementation section Here, you did a good job of outline the strategies this program used. It might make it clearer to be more clear when introducing each strategy. For example, "The first strategy, problem solving, ...." This may help organize it better. In addition, additional features of the implementation strategies (enhanced training, updated marketing and communications techniques, etc.) are mentioned in the introductory portion of this section, but are never explained. Is there more information available on this that you would consider adding, perhaps even briefly all in one paragraph at the end of the section?

Operation section - I know this was there before you, but what is meant when it says "the same officers are allegedly assigned to a beat for at least a year"? This seems to imply that this didn't actually happen. Is there something to this? Otherwise, I would recommend taking it out.

Results and Assessment section - This section starts off with a confusing run on sentence, would you mind polishing that? - In addition, could you clarify what you mean when you say that "fewer officers have been placed in various communities"? Which communities?

Revitalized in 2013 section - How would community members be able to take part in beat meetings from home?

Really good job overall! It's super interesting. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Claireregan1206 (talkcontribs) 23:38, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

Peer Review for PS 489[edit]

Overall, I agree with the good linkage of sources. There are some questions I have for the section for "revitalized in 2013". The second sentence makes it seem as if there is still some revitalization still occurring. Is there still some occurring? If so, it would be good to add this information? TDFergus (talk) 04:43, 9 March 2017 (UTC)