User:Profmwilliams/sandbox

Peer review example
Here is an example of a fictitious peer review of a fictitious article that would be considered complete. Notice that the reviewers address each part of criterion 5 of the Wikipedia assignment and make suggestions that incorporate new ideas and the group's planned revisions. The suggestions for meeting each part of criterion 5 are specific in that they give the group a clear sense of how to meet the criteria. The more specific, the better!

The article revisions are on the way to completing all parts of criterion 5 of the Wikipedia assignment. We have explained each part and made suggestions for improvement below:

5a. The group has currently added 200 words to the article, which is 150 words short of the 350-word minimum. On the article talk page, the group said that they plan to add two sections on the history of policing and current issues in policing. It might be better to just add one of these sections and make sure it's 150 words. Otherwise, each section might only be 75 words, which wouldn't be enough to cover each section. (Note that there could also be the opposite problem: if the group had only added 100 words and they wanted to add a very narrow section, then it may not be enough to get them to the 350-word minimum.)

5b. The current revisions focus on the topic, but the section on the legal issues related to policing goes into too much detail. We suggest condensing the two paragraphs about the Supreme Court's reasoning in each case into one broader paragraph.

5c. The current revisions display a little bit of bias in that they focus on one side of the argument that the police are essentially corrupt. In the revisions, focus on adding some information about the side of the argument that says that not all police are corrupt. It could be useful to bring in information about different types of corrupt officers and departments to show that corruption isn't just one-sided.

5d. For the most part, information is correctly referenced. The sentence, "Americans tend to trust the police" needs a source.

5e. The revisions do a good job of summarizing information without bringing in original research. (Note that bringing evidence together in a new way to make an original argument would constitute "original research." As you review your articles, be on the lookout for information that goes beyond summarizing the current literature.)

5f. Most of the revisions are well-written, clear, and concise, follow copyright laws, and include few or no mechanical errors. There is a grammar error in the first sentence of the opening section that needs to be fixed.

5g. The revisions are organized within and between sections and the article seems to flow with the new revisions.

5h. Almost all of the revisions comply with style guidelines. The third section needs to be a sub-section of the second section instead of its own new section.

5i. The revisions so far don't link to other Wikipedia cases. You could link "Rodney King," "Use of force continuum," and "Community policing" to those pages.

5j. So far, the revisions don't include any images. Some ideas for what to add would be images related to protests over the police and/or pictures of officers who have been major players in combating corruption in the U.S.

Citation example
Foot patrol has been shown to decrease citizens' fear of crime.

List of pages to edit
=== Each pair of students should put their user names beside the article that their pair will work on this semester. If the page you'd like to work on is not listed here, visit this page for other pages you may edit. ===


 * Community policing Oliviashaw Ashton22
 * Civilian Complaint Review Board
 * Racial profilingBrandonAndrews (talk) 03:21, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Intelligence-led policing tthompson70381 Sgipson13
 * Problem-oriented policing
 * Frankpledge system
 * Parish constable
 * Wickersham Commission
 * Josiah Quincy, Jr.
 * Stephen Girard
 * Slave patrolCaitlin Holt AEsquibel23
 * Volstead Act
 * Harrison Narcotics Tax Act
 * Prison-industrial complexTom Olney and Chris Haltiner(Shadowbolt7)
 * Prohibition of drugs
 * Asset forfeiture Cameronpage25, CJ2300
 * Discretion karlfinai TheTurf
 * Cop in the Hood
 * Professionalization
 * Police academy
 * Probable cause Odinlosemei, oksoha
 * Moral entrepreneur
 * Peelian Principles
 * Drug test
 * Police corruptionColtenHansen, Bryan Wicker
 * Internal affairs (law enforcement)
 * Use of force continuum
 * Use of force Slarrab Dionnecoe

Profmwilliams (talk) 16:49, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

Completed online training
This is a list of those who have completed the online training. If you have completed the training and your name is not here, double-check to make sure that you completed the steps on the last page of the training to certify your completion. If you did so and your name is not here, please reply to this message and let me know. Profmwilliams (talk) 15:00, 18 September 2014 (UTC)


 * CaityJanelle
 * Karlfinai
 * Bryan Wicker
 * TheTurf
 * Odinlosemei
 * AEsquibel23
 * BrandonAndrews
 * Oksoha
 * Shadowbolt7
 * Slarrab


 * I did the online training and tried to get certification last week but I guess it didn't work. Does my name show up now?Oksoha (talk) 04:31, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
 * I see it now and I've added your name to the list. Profmwilliams (talk) 16:37, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
 * I thought I completed a few days ago, is this the updated list?Sgipson13 (talk) 17:13, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm with these guys. I completed the training and read/watched all the stuff. I'm not sure why it doesn't show that I've completed it. Cameronpage25 (talk) 03:28, 26 September 2014 (UTC)