User talk:SecretKeeper

Welcome!
Hello, SecretKeeper, 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. If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to contact me on my talk page. Adam (Wiki Ed) (talk) 05:39, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

Peer Review
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) 14:15, 9 March 2017 (UTC)