User talk:Csamc
Welcome!
[edit]Hello, Csamc, and welcome to Wikipedia! My name is Adam and I work with the Wiki Education Foundation; I help support students who are editing as part of a class assignment.
I hope you enjoy editing here. If you haven't already done so, please check out the student training library, which introduces you to editing and Wikipedia's core principles. You may also want to check out the Teahouse, a community of Wikipedia editors dedicated to helping new users. Below are some resources to help you get started editing.
Handouts
|
|---|
Additional Resources
|
|
If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to contact me on my talk page. Adam (Wiki Ed) (talk) 21:11, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
Peer Review
[edit]Overall, I thought that the article had a lot of good information in it and was well organized for the most part. The sources were strong as well. Here are some suggestions that I had for the group as follows.
Maybe the results and assessments section and the revitalized in 2013 section could go before the public perspectives and criticisms section? The order of the information would then discuss the program’s overall effectiveness first and then it can be explained what people do not like about the program.
Some of the assessments seem like they are public perceptions of the program. Maybe some of the information from the results/assessments section could be moved to public perceptions/criticisms section. For example, “another report conducted by Northwestern University found that, after ten years of CAPS' implementation, both white and African-American residents felt a decreased fear of crime in their area” could be moved to the public perceptions section.
It might help to discuss in more detail what specific criticisms people have about the program.
Wikipedia mention in the peer review training to avoid making claims on behalf of unnamed groups or people. The article says “as noted by criminology scholars, policing strategies often get no rigorous evaluation or assessment, leading to lack of data and evidence regarding the efficacy of the program.” It feels like based off their guidelines, the wording of the sentence should be changed.
“Instead of an overall guide for the whole Police Department Caps had evolved into a bureaucratic program.” May need to be worded differently to avoid possible bias.
Reference 13- Clear path source could not be accessed.
Small formatting thing: Wording dates in the references as 18 February 2017 for example, makes the red date error lettering go away. Though that maybe time consuming to fix.Thomascovenant (talk) 14:11, 9 March 2017 (UTC)
Peer Review
[edit]Firstly, what an interesting topic!
I thought you did a really good job of evaluating sources and using credible sources in your edits.
I would try to see if you can find more information to add to the results and assessments section. I think this section is very important because knowing statistics and professional opinions about its effectiveness can help others in their research and understanding. It mentions that criminology scholars note policing strategies often get no rigorous evaluation or assessment. I would try to define who these scholars are to avoid generalizing. Also, have others been critical about the lack of information available regarding the program's effectiveness? I would assume that professionals and the public would want to know if the program is working. If you can't find credible data and assessments to add, that's okay. It's just something you may want to look at. It stood out to me as something I would want to know.
Were the results and assessments you included about the program prior to 2013? If they include an assessment of the 2013 program, I would list the results and assessment section after the revitalized in 2013 section. If they do not include a 2013 assessment, I would look to see if new assessments of the program exist.
The article includes an external links section. I would include a "further reading" section as well. Having articles (or of they exist, books) on the topic would be helpful to readers.
I thought the article was comprehensive and gave a great overview of the topic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chris Gannon 12 (talk • contribs) 18:01, 9 March 2017 (UTC)
Peer Review
[edit]Overall, I think the article looks very good. The additions you've made definitely help the article. The sources you've added all seem to be reliable sources. There really isn't anything that I can find wrong with the article. The only thing I notice is the the section titled: Public Perceptions and Criticisms could stand to go after the results section because I think it would help the article flow better. It seems like something that would follow up the results section. Also, I agree with the above comment where it says discuss it greater detail about criticisms of the program. I think that would help that section. With that being said, great edits so far!
As a result, I think you have a very well written article, and there are very few things you can stand to correct. Michadea (talk) 20:46, 9 March 2017 (UTC)
Peer Review
[edit]Hi Csamc, great article. In the first paragraph, maybe you can add a citation source after the last sentence. Maybe you can add some hyperlinks in the first paragraph as well linking to the different cities like Chicago, Marquette, etc. In the Implementation or Operation sub page maybe you can further elaborate on what a "beat" is by maybe making a hyperlink for "beat" to another Wikipedia page about it or do something similar to that. If possible make a hyperlink to another Wikipedia page for the Office of Emergency Management and Communication (OEMC) in the Operations section/sub page. You can do the same with Mayor’s Liquor License Commission, the Department of Streets and Sanitation, the Department of Buildings as well. You can make a hyperlink to Chicagopolice.org in the Revitalized in 2013 section. For the last paragraph of the Public Perceptions and Criticisms section maybe you can elaborate more on why there is a contradiction in the research and reports. For example this "Among African-American and Latino respondents, less than a majority of respondents articulated a positive view of CAPS as a whole." makes it seem that most Blacks and Latinos have a largely negative view of CAPS while this "Another report conducted by Northwestern University found that, after ten years of CAPS' implementation, both white and African-American residents felt a decreased fear of crime in their area." makes it seem like Blacks have a positive feeling towards CAPS. Finally this "additionally, the gap between the perceptions of effectiveness between whites and minority groups was found to be the same ten years after CAPS implementation as it was before the strategy was implemented in 1993" can be further elaborated on where you tell the reader why this matters, what exactly is the cause of this gap and what is the gap in reference to? Micalh (talk) 19:47, 14 March 2017 (UTC)Micalh