User talk:801johnna/School resource officer

Evaluation of Article
The introductory is clear in defining, but doesn't include any description of sections and lacks sources on some of the information. The viewpoint in this article is a bit unbalanced but may be due to lack of research and empirical evidence to assert framework or certain arguments. The intro is concise but to its detriment.

The content and sections are developed and relevant to the main topic. Content needs to be further developed and isn't up-to-date. I found most sources cited are over a decade old and some details and important current and recent events are completely missing. For instance, there is no information on the Justice Departments CIR of the response to the mass shooting at Robb Elementary School in Uvalde, Texas where 19 children and two teachers were killed on May 24, 2022. There are some gaps and the content flow needs developed. The "Outcomes" heading is confusing and state laws information should be more detailed and specific.

This article needs to expand on detailing the job duties--day to day of SROs and their impacts on those they serve. The tone and balance seem neutral, but the talk page says otherwise. There is no proponent argument to keep SROs. This would be a section of this topic to research. The "effectiveness" paragraph is written in a way that is very hard to follow and interpret. Maybe rewording or breaking compound sentence into digestible ideas would help.

The sources and references are all over the place in this Wiki article. A couple of sources are not linked, cut and paste didn't bring up the reference. One source link takes me to a 404 page not found error. Quite a few of the sources are links to the NASCRO material, so government published info--relevant, current, and thorough. One source links to the Senate Bill, so detailing legislation. Many sources are links to local news coverage of SRO incidents of excessive force. Once citation reference is formatted incorrectly. Besides citation 38, which is a great secondary source, the latter sources in this article are missing or need work.

The article is organized and somewhat well-written but needs work. I think there is one grammatical or typing error. Overall, this article seems like it is in the beginning stages of development and aspects of the SRO debates need to be added. This article has no images. The talk page is fairly short with only three to four relevant comments. These comments include being critical of the neutrality and calls out unsubstantiated claims made in the article.801johnna (talk) 05:20, 21 April 2024 (UTC)