User talk:Bkheil

Test

Using messaging tool.Johnwandrey (talk) 17:03, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Peer Review

The lead section is messy and is unappealing to the eye. I would suggest moving your picture into a different place and losing the bolded letters. This lead section should summarize your whole article, which it looks like you did a pretty good job of. I do like the Robert Peel quote. Underneath the statistic section someone wrote "Males are more likely to have force used against them more than woman". This sentence is awkward, confusing, and needs to be rewritten and maybe add some numbers to back this up along with a citation. That fact that you wrote levels twice in the sentence "At the micro level, the violent crime levels increased likelihood of police use of force" is redundant and bugs me. Try to use as little quotes as possible. I like your use of bullet points and lists, but don't get too crazy with them, not that you have, but just as a warning. And then of course you need to add more words because you haven't reached 350 words. Other than that, everything looks pretty good. If you have any questions or confusions feel free to ask. Kendyl95 (talk) 18:36, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

Professor Review

5a. So far, you've added 15 words, so you still need to add 335 words. The suggestions for improvement that you've left on the article talk page sound like great ideas and are sure to get you to the minimum word count. There is already some information on how officer education and experience play into the use of force, but adding the others that your group suggested would help expand the section on office attributes.

5b. Your revision and proposed revisions do focus on the topic and don't go into unnecessary detail.

5c. Your revision and proposed revisions represent viewpoints fairly and without bias. In fact, the suggested revision to include examples of cases of appropriate use of force would help balance the cases related to inappropriate use of force.

5d. Your revision includes an appropriate reference.

5e. Your revision doesn't include original research.

5f. Your revision is well-written, clear, and concise and doesn't violate copyright laws.

5g. The article overall has a weird flow. It isn't clear why the sections are ordered the way they are and where your new section should fit. Consider renaming the sections to be more clear. For instance, "Crime Levels" doesn't in and of itself tell me what the section is about. A more specific title might be "Neighborhood Attributes." This would fit better with what the surrounding sections are called. I'm not particularly fond of the "Attributes" titles because they're not self-explanatory as to what they should include, so if you could think of a different name for these sections, or maybe group them all together as subsections under a main section, that could help the flow of the article.

5h. The revisions comply with style guidelines.

5j. Your revisions include an image that is appropriately captioned and has all the relevant copyright information.

Profmwilliams (talk) 18:22, 3 April 2015 (UTC)