Talk:Chicago Alternative Policing Strategy

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Watkina, Csamc, SecretKeeper. Peer reviewers: Thomascovenant, Micalh, TDFergus, Chris Gannon 12, Michadea, Claireregan1206.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 17:21, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Neutrality?

This article appears to me to be written by a PR department. I don't really want to put that tag on the article though, as it does seem to be well written and so on. It just seems, ... Well it doesn't have any criticisms for one.

A template that might have been better to use might have been this one http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Template:Primarysources

I would start a criticisms section, except I know nothing of the topic, and I don't know the template (and can't find it either) for sections that need attention. ~AFA ^{Imagine I swore.} 03:23, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dropping some stuff off at talk

[1] CAPS update. ```Buster Seven Talk 19:51, 25 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Article updated. ```Buster Seven Talk 13:27, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Chicago Alternative Policing Strategy. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:36, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

BL&D Peer Review

To start, I have to say you did a really good job of not only adding sources, but reliable ones. I see that the article was very much lacking before, so that's a great contribution.

Implementation section Here, you did a good job of outline the strategies this program used. It might make it clearer to be more clear when introducing each strategy. For example, "The first strategy, problem solving, ...." This may help organize it better. In addition, additional features of the implementation strategies (enhanced training, updated marketing and communications techniques, etc.) are mentioned in the introductory portion of this section, but are never explained. Is there more information available on this that you would consider adding, perhaps even briefly all in one paragraph at the end of the section?

Operation section - I know this was there before you, but what is meant when it says "the same officers are allegedly assigned to a beat for at least a year"? This seems to imply that this didn't actually happen. Is there something to this? Otherwise, I would recommend taking it out.

Results and Assessment section - This section starts off with a confusing run on sentence, would you mind polishing that? - In addition, could you clarify what you mean when you say that "fewer officers have been placed in various communities"? Which communities?

Revitalized in 2013 section - How would community members be able to take part in beat meetings from home?

Really good job overall! It's super interesting. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Claireregan1206 (talk • contribs) 23:38, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Peer Review for PS 489

Overall, I agree with the good linkage of sources. There are some questions I have for the section for "revitalized in 2013". The second sentence makes it seem as if there is still some revitalization still occurring. Is there still some occurring? If so, it would be good to add this information? TDFergus (talk) 04:43, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]