User talk:Ryanbeddes

Guess what... I'm your partner...

Hello
Let's work on the bibliography and get it done before class is over. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Allymac08 (talk • contribs) 16:55, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

The idea is that we finish the project early. We need to find a time either this weekend or the following to plow through this and get our 350 words in. Either this weekend or next weekend. Sound good? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Allymac08 (talk • contribs) 16:20, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

Measuring the Continuum of Force Used by and against the Police Garner J.H., Schade T., Hepburn J., Buchanan J. (1995) Criminal Justice Review,  20  (2), pp. 146-168. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Allymac08 (talk • contribs) 16:11, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

Article I am editing
Use of Force Continuum

Sources being examined as contributors of information to UOF Continuum
The Use-of-Force Continuum. (2009, August 4). Retrieved February 13, 2015, from National Institute of Justice website: http://www.nij.gov/topics/law-enforcement/officer-safety/use-of-force/Pages/ continuum.aspx Ryanbeddes (talk) 20:56, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Citation Example
Foot patrol has been shown to decrease citizens fear of crime. Ryanbeddes (talk) 16:47, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

The Use of Force is a method of deciding policy restrictions and requirements to use certain uses of force, given the totality of the circumstance. Measuring the Continuum of Force Used by and against the Police Garner J.H., Schade T., Hepburn J., Buchanan J. (1995) Criminal Justice Review, 20 (2), pp. 146-168. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Allymac08 (talk • contribs) 16:14, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

Peer Review
5a. The group has currently added 124 words to the article, which is 226 words short of the 350 word minimum. The article history shows that another user removed these sentences from the article. After looking at the groups talk page it appears they have plans explaining the use of force continuum. Maybe go into how it is evolving. Hopefully other users will keep this information on the page. As well as continue looking at the USMC revisions you were planning on to keep it unbiased.

5b. The sentence on law enforcement nationwide should use the same use of force model, is good and to the point. The sentences on the Supreme Court did go into a little more detail than needed. It feels a little off topic talking about the fourth amendment and a person’s rights. The planed revisions with the excessive force research also feels off topic. Maybe find how the research relates to the use of force continuum.

5c. The revisions placed in the article were written well and were not biased.

5d. The link to the wiki article, that explains what a reasonable person is, was good. It looks like the information that was placed in the article was from a source that was already in the article. If not it does need to have a reference citation.

5e. The planned revisions sound good, and seems to be done without showing original research.

5f. It appears that the revisions are clear and concise, as well as following copyright laws.

5g. The sentence in the example model did fit where it was, and flowed nicely. I do not know why the other user removed it.

5h. The revisions placed in the article followed the style guidelines.

5i. The revisions did have a link to another page. But it was removed by another user.

5j. There are no images for this article yet. It sounds like the plans with showing the use of force continuum are getting harder to do. Maybe have some images that show the different types of force to explain each level.SyndicateOlson (talk) 05:45, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

Professor Review
5a. You have added more than 350 words.

5b. Your revisions focus on the topic without unnecessary detail.

5c. Your revisions represent viewpoints fairly and without bias.

5d. Your revisions now include references. However, some of the references do not include the information you attribute to them. For instance, the description of officer presence on the cited source includes a very brief explanation of presence, but not the level of detail you include on the page. Your sources should include the information you put on the page.

5e. Because your cited sources do not include the information you've put on the page, it constitutes original research.

5f. Your revisions are generally concise and well-written.

5g. Your revisions are organized well within the article.

5h. Your revisions comply with style guidelines.

5i. A couple of Wikilinks in your revisions do not link to existing Wikipedia articles. Those that appear in red are not properly linked. If there's no existing article, then don't link it.

5j. I know you're working on adding an image that won't violate copyright laws. I like peer reviewer's suggestion to add an image or two to illustrate each step in the continuum. If you hear back from agencies you've requested permissions from, then put those images on, but if not, this criteria has been satisfied by the effort you've put in to finding a usable image.

Profmwilliams (talk) 15:49, 10 April 2015 (UTC)