Evaluation of a Wikipedia Article edit
| Wikipedia Quality - Good | Rate from 1/10 (10 = more good) | Explain your rating |
|---|---|---|
| The Lead section is understandable | 7 | The lead section makes sense and is comprehensible. It provides an overview however it is quite basic.
It also begins to introduce perspectives on the area very quickly. |
| The structure is clear | 10 | The article utilises clear sections, subheadings and a contents box to clearly layout the talking points for the topic. |
| Good balance | 5 | There is not a lot of information regarding predictive policing itself. More than half the article is dedicated to discussing the positives and negatives of the practice. It seems the article leans more towards evaluating the practice rather than explaining and educating readers about it. |
| Coverage is neutral | 3 | The topic is heavily influenced by the American perspective. All of the opinions and examples (except one) that have been included are from the United States.
There is significantly more information in the criticisms section than in the effectiveness section; however, the topic is highly controversial and often criticised by those in the field. |
| Reliable sources | 7 |  |
| Wikipedia Quality - Bad | Rate from 1/10 (10 = more bad) | Explain your rating |
|---|---|---|
| Has a warning banner on top | 10 | There is a warning banner at the top of the page indicating a lack of worldwide view and perspective. |
| Language Problems in Lead section | 1 | No major issues. Just wonder whether "methods for predicting offenders" and "methods for predicting perpetrators' identities" are the same thing as no further detail is provided anywhere. |
| Unsourced opinion & value statements | 0 | All opinions given are cited to the people who said them as direct quotes; all of whom are stated to have some authority in the field. |
| Too general statements | N/A | N/A |
| Aspects of the topic are missing | 6 | The article could use more detail regarding how predictive policing works and its exact methodologies; especially considering the quickly advancing technology in the field. Further explanation of the four broad categories mentioned in the lead article would be useful in further understanding the difference aspects of the practice of predictive policing. |
| Overly long relative to importance | 6 | The criticism section alone takes up approximately 1/3 of the relatively short article which indicates that it may be slightly biased towards the practice of predictive policing. |
| Few references or lacks footnotes | N/A | N/A |
| Hostile dialogue in talk page | N/A | There is no discussion on the page's talk page. |
Other relevant comments in regard to equity and balance. edit
| |
Overall, the article appears to be of moderate quality. It is an excellence starting point and with a few improvements to its balance and worldwide representativeness as well as an expansion of its detailed information, the article could easily become of a much higher quality.
Minor Editing edit
Central Intelligence Organisation
The Central Intelligence Organisation (CIO) is the national intelligence agency or "secret police" of Zimbabwe. It was developed in the early 1960s as an external intelligence-gathering arm of the British South Africa Police Special Branch; under Southern Rhodesian Prime Minister Winston Field.
History edit
The CIO was formed in Rhodesia in 1963 following the dissolution of the Federation of Rhodesia and Nyasaland. The CIO took over from the Federal Intelligence and Security Bureau, which was a coordinating bureau analyzing intelligence gathered by the British South Africa Police (BSAP) and the police forces of Northern Rhodesia and Nyasaland.[citation needed]
The first head of the CIO was Police Deputy Commissioner, Ken Flower, who, during his tenure, also oversaw the BSAP's Special Branch Headquarters incorporated within the CIO. The Special Branch retained its internal security function within the BSAP before gaining independence in April 1980.
Flower maintained his role as of head of the CIO after a majority rule in 1980. Despite rumors that he had covertly and intermittently plotted with the British intelligence services and MI6 to undermine Ian Smith's government, Flower shared a strictly professional relationship with the heads of all other intelligence agencies.
| |
