Wikipedia:WikiProject Law Enforcement/Peer review/Police brutality

Police brutality[edit]

I'm having a hard time with improving this article because of very limited feedback, despite an RfC. I would rather work collaboratively on such a controversial subject. Any extra eyes, thoughts, and contributions would be appreciated. Thanks. --Ginkgo 100 ^talk 21:25, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

I've copied the criteria from below into this review. Due to the fact that there are members of this wikiproject more experienced in policing matters than myself, i will defer to their future judgement regarding content, and will deal specifically with issues relating to the... "wikipedia-ness" of the article.

1. It is well written. In this respect:

(a) The middle of the introduction could flow slightly better, I feel. While the first paragraph of the alleged corruption section may be a tad difficult to follow, the remaining two paragraphs are well written. The remainder of the article does also appear well written and flows well, good English overall. (b) The overall sections are broken down cleanly, with a nice set of examples, good see alsos and references. The alleged corruption section, going from a large heading, through a good set of text, to two minor headings of politics and investigation, don't flow into each other totally comfortably, possible reorganisation there I feel. (c) good style, no obvious issues that I can see, theres a good number of inter-links (d) There isn't too much jargon that needs explaining that I feel, though I am aware that because of my police knowledge (such that it is) I may be taking some knowledge for granted where a less informed person may not know.

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable. In this respect:

(a) A good list of references! Excellent, the references problem is all to common in this project at the moment, glad to see this article deals with that. (b) References and citations are set up correctly, (c) Sources seem reliable, some published works on the topic, very good. (d) need to take care of that 'citation needed'

3. It is broad in its coverage. In this respect :

(a) While there may be section headings for each aspect, they all need expanding i feel, everything under alleged corruption. For instance, under the heading of 'Human rights', there are two lines, but surely the whole issue breaks down to human rights? More details of the 2005 reports discoveries? Each section needs expansion I'm afraid. (b) Difficult to evaluate whether there is any non-useful triva, or whether the writing strays, as the level of content is moderate in places. Though i have to say, i agree with certain comments on the talk page that the Abuse infobox seems a little unnecessary.

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy. In this respect:

(a) the language maintains neutrality on the whole. NPOV can be difficult in articles such as these, a good tactic is to make sure the use of words such as "alleged" or "cases of suspected police brutality" to soften certain statements. (b) Are there couter arguements to excessive police force? The old 'they are criminals who cares' type stance? 5. The article does seem to be changing quite rapidly, 10-15 edits in the last few days from a number of users, however this observation isn't particularly helpful unless you are looking for GA or A class nomination, for which stability is a criteria.

6. It contains images, where possible, to illustrate the topic. In this respect:

(a) One image! Images are always strongly encouraged. Not only does it help visualise the topic, but they break up the text for the casual reader, though they may be difficult at the moment to obtain, with expansion of the article more opportunities for images may present themselves, for instance the image of an officer reknown for brutality. (b) the image has the correct legislation.

I hope this helps. Another more informed member will hopefully lend their expertise when it comes to the detailed content, however thats my take on the wikipedia side of things.SGGH 22:11, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comments. I am planning to reorganize the article somewhat since nobody has objected to my proposal on the talk page. I would really like to do something with the list of individual cases. I think it would be most encyclopedic to list just a few well-chosen notable cases. --Ginkgo 100 ^talk 19:46, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's always a good approach, you can always put a link to a "victims of police brutality" catagory in you 'see also' section, so people can have access to every individual case if they so wish.--SGGH 11:13, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]