User:Jbpoinde/SourceNotes

Topic: Police Force Misconduct ________________________________________________________________________ First Draft--4/9/20: Title: St. Petersburg Police Department Section Outline: - Lead (no change) - Districts (no change) - History (adding to History) Original Section: In 1965, a dozen officers, dubbed "the Courageous 12", sued the city for discrimination. After losing their case, a federal appeals court ruled in their favor in 1968, effectively ending the department's policy of segregation.[5]

In 2011 three SPPD officers were killed within the span of less than one month.[6][7][8]

Adding/ Changing:

In 1960s African American police officers were discriminated against. They were not allowed to work in certain locations, move up in rank, and also were not permitted to arrest whites. They had separate water fountains and lockers in the police station and were referred to as “half-police officers" by the community.  The officers even had to deal with the their inability to arrest white people by having to wait for a white officer to come and make any actual arrests.

In 1965, a dozen officers, dubbed "the Courageous 12", sued the city for discrimination. These officers included Leon Jackson, Adam Baker, Freddie Crawford, Raymond DeLoach, Charles Holland, Robert Keys, Primus Killen, James King, Johnnie B. Lewis, Horace Nero, Jerry Styles, and Nathaniel Wooten. After loosing their case, a federal appeals court, ruled in their favor in 1968, effectively ending the department's policy of segregation.[5] James B. Sanderlin was an activist and a lawyer that fought to end social and legal inequality in St. Petersburg. He was the lawyer who represented the " Courageous 12", and later went on to become the first African American judge of Pinellas County. 

In 2011 three SPPD officers were killed within the span of less than one month.[6][7][8] In 2019 the courageous 12 were honored by the creation of a plaque that was placed in the Saint Petersburg FL. Police department. Today there is only one living officer from the original courageous 12 group, Leon Jackson.

- Controversies (no changes) - See Also (no changes) - References

Reflections: - Where does your article cohere with these guidelines? Where does it need work?

The article needs work in the history and controversies section as there is nothing about how the police force was treated back them. With the information we are focusing on, we choose to only add to the history section.

- What are the major issues that need to be addressed in your article? In what ways does your revision improve the article?

The major issued that need to be addressed is the way the black police officers were treated back in the 1960's as well as mentioning James B. Sanderlin (the first black lawyer), and the Courageous 12 being honored as well as mentioning last living man today, Leon Jackson age 79.

- Are there gaps in your references list, or sources you think are still needed to strengthen your article?

I do not think so. We have a lot of information from the Tampa Bay Times and videos of the last Courageous 12 officer, Leon Jackson. I am unsure on how to get the sources to represent 1,2,3 etc from the list above though.

- What other items do you want to add to the finished article: An info box? An image (or images)?

We would like to add a photo of the plaque that is given to honor the courageous 12 that is in the lobby of the Saint Petersburg Police Department. [3] up top Keya


 * 1) First, what does the article do well? Is there anything from your review that impressed you? Any turn of phrase that describes the subject in a clear way? - You do well describing all the parts of what you're talking about
 * 2) What changes would you suggest the author apply to the article? Why would those changes be an improvement? - I like the idea of including this section "The courageous 12 had to deal with the their inability to arrest white people by having to wait for a white officer to come and make any actual arrests". I can't see the rest of the article, but if SPPD isn't fully written out somewhere in the article, maybe spell it out the first time?
 * 3) What's the most important thing the author could do to improve the article? - Looks good to me. Maybe add a picture of "the Courageous 12" if there isn't already one?
 * 4) Is the new content’s length equal to its importance to the article's subject? Are there sections in the article that seem unnecessary? Is anything off-topic? - The length looks good from what I can see. There don't seem to be unnecessary/ off-topic sections.
 * 5) Does the article focus too much on negative or positive information? Remember, neutral doesn't mean "the best positive light" or "the worst, most critical light." It means a clear reflection of various aspects of a topic. - You do well maintaining a neutral point of view
 * 6) Are most statements in the article connected to a reliable source, such as textbooks and journal articles? Or do they rely on blogs or self-published authors? - It looks like you have a good amount of reliable sources attached to what you have added. I would be careful using Fox news as a source of information, but if it's for pictures I think its OK.
 * 7) Did you notice anything about the article you reviewed that could be applicable to your own article? Let them know! - I liked how concise you were when you were explaining things and it is something that I could take to my article.

Hannah Clarke

1.    First, what does the article do well? Is there anything from your review that impressed you? Any turn of phrase that describes the subject in a clear way?

I think it fits well into the already existing article and I like how you include the extra information about their lawyer.

2.    What changes would you suggest the author apply to the article? Why would those changes be an improvement?

I like the addition of the sentence you weren’t sure about. However, I think saying “deal with” connotes a bit of bias. Obviously, I completely agree it was soooo messed up in every way. Just for wiki-sake, ya know.

3.    What's the most important thing the author could do to improve the article?

Add a picture? Include the names of the courageous 12 if the OG article doesn’t already do that.

4.    Is the new content’s length equal to its importance to the article's subject? Are there sections in the article that seem unnecessary? Is anything off-topic?

I think you could add a bit more information on how black police officers were seen as second class compared to white officers, just to beef it up a bit more. I don’t think anything is off topic.

5.    Does the article focus too much on negative or positive information? Remember, neutral doesn't mean "the best positive light" or "the worst, most critical light." It means a clear reflection of various aspects of a topic.

I think its neutral expect maybe for that “deal with” part. Nice job!

6.    Are most statements in the article connected to a reliable source, such as textbooks and journal articles? Or do they rely on blogs or self-published authors?

Both newspaper articles- looks good to me.

7.    Did you notice anything about the article you reviewed that could be applicable to your own article? Let them know!

It looks like you carefully picked the information you wanted to focus. I think you being selective made your paper clear and concise and without an excess of information.

Alina


 * 1) First, what does the article do well? Is there anything from your review that impressed you? Any turn of phrase that describes the subject in a clear way? I think the article expands well on the history of the Saint Petersburg police department and the courageous 12. It also discusses what exactly they were discriminated for which I think was good to add.
 * 2) What changes would you suggest the author apply to the article? Why would those changes be an improvement? Some of the sentences only state an event and do not expand so I would
 * 3) What's the most important thing the author could do to improve the article? Ensuring that the article flows well by filling in the gaps for the sentences about events that happened in 2011 and 2019.
 * 4) Is the new content’s length equal to its importance to the article's subject? Are there sections in the article that seem unnecessary? Is anything off-topic? The length is good for the importance of the subject. I dont think there was anything unnecessary.
 * 5) Does the article focus too much on negative or positive information? Remember, neutral doesn't mean "the best positive light" or "the worst, most critical light." It means a clear reflection of various aspects of a topic. The article does a great job of staying neutral.
 * 6) Are most statements in the article connected to a reliable source, such as textbooks and journal articles? Or do they rely on blogs or self-published authors? They are reliable as they are newspaper articles.
 * 7) Did you notice anything about the article you reviewed that could be applicable to your own article? Let them know! You did a great job making the article clear and concise which my groups article could do to reduce excess information that may not be necessary.

Will


 * 1) First, what does the article do well? Is there anything from your review that impressed you? Any turn of phrase that describes the subject in a clear way?

I think that the edits to the article help readers to better understand the kind of discrimination the Black police officers in St. Petersburg. The previous edition of the article only briefly mentioned the discrimination they faced, but the new edition describes the acts that were going on. I think that these subtle edits really help the article, without changing it too much.

2. What changes would you suggest the author apply to the article? Why would those changes be an improvement?

I do not know how much information there is on the Courageous 12, but if there is more information, I would add a brief section of each of the officers (or at least a few). These changes would help to give the reader a better connection with the subject.

3. What's the most important thing the author could do to improve the article?

I think that the article is already really good. The only thing I would address is to add a section of the actual officers of the Courageous 12.

4. Is the new content’s length equal to its importance to the article's subject? Are there sections in the article that seem unnecessary? Is anything off-topic?

The Wikipedia article of the St. Petersburg Police Department is very short, so I think that the new additions to it are of appropriate length. Adding too much information would make it seem biased.

5. Does the article focus too much on negative or positive information? Remember, neutral doesn't mean "the best positive light" or "the worst, most critical light." It means a clear reflection of various aspects of a topic.

The article is written from a very neutral standpoint. I do not think that anything needs to be altered from this perspective.

6. Are most statements in the article connected to a reliable source, such as textbooks and journal articles? Or do they rely on blogs or self-published authors?

All of the additions to the article were provided with news sources. They were added using proper Wikipedia formatting.

7. Did you notice anything about the article you reviewed that could be applicable to your own article? Let them know!

I think that I could shorten my additions to the article, while still providing all of the essential information. The information that was added to the St. Petersburg Police Department article was very short, but it provided a lot context.

Kelly


 * 1) First, what does the article do well? Is there anything from your review that impressed you? Any turn of phrase that describes the subject in a clear way? I think the article does well in explaining how the officers were discriminated against and what their lives as police officers were like.
 * 2) What changes would you suggest the author apply to the article? Why would those changes be an improvement? I would suggest adding more. It would be the most beneficial to add more info on the courageous 12- who they were, what experiences in particular sparked them to rebel (if any), and more information about their trial and journey with that. Then, if changes in the police departments took place immediately or took more time to come about.
 * 3) What's the most important thing the author could do to improve the article? Add more specific information on the courageous 12.
 * 4) Is the new content’s length equal to its importance to the article's subject? Are there sections in the article that seem unnecessary? Is anything off-topic? No, I would say for how important this subject is, there is not enough information on it to match that. I don't think any of the sections are unnecessary, they just need to be added to.
 * 5) Does the article focus too much on negative or positive information? Remember, neutral doesn't mean "the best positive light" or "the worst, most critical light." It means a clear reflection of various aspects of a topic. No, I think its pretty neutral. It could be helpful to add a couple sentences on how the SPPD is currently doing to conclude the new section.
 * 6) Are most statements in the article connected to a reliable source, such as textbooks and journal articles? Or do they rely on blogs or self-published authors? Yes, I think both sources are from established, credible news media outlets.
 * 7) Did you notice anything about the article you reviewed that could be applicable to your own article? Let them know! Not sure.