Talk:Prince George's County Sheriff's Office/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

I will be happy to review this article for GAC. H1nkles (talk) 15:47, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review Philosophy

When I do an article review I like to provide a Heading-by-Heading breakdown of suggestions for how to make the article better. It is done in good faith as a means to improve the article. It does not necessarily mean that the article is not GA quality, or that the issues listed are keeping it from GA approval. I also undertake minor grammatical and prose edits. After I finish this part of the review I will look at the over arching quality of the article in light of the GA criteria and make my determination as to the overall quality of the article.

GA Checklist

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

Is it well written?
A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:

B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:
Is it verifiable with no original research, as shown by a source spot-check?
A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:

B. Reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose):

C. It contains no original research:

D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:
Is it broad in its coverage?
A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:

B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):
Is it neutral?
It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
Is it stable?
It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?
A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content:

B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
Overall:
Pass or Fail:

Regarding Lead

What do you mean by the Sheriff's office being a "progressive agency"? Usually progressive is used to mean forward-thinking, on the cusp of every change, perhaps even liberal. Is this your intent because it isn't clear in the lead.
Per wp:image the photo should be right justified. It is a large photo, perhaps too large for the article, a smaller version may need to be uploaded in order to fit better. H1nkles (talk) 16:02, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Per wp:lead the lead is supposed to be up to 3 paragraphs and be an adequate summary of the article. I do not see mention of the history, duties, organization, rank structure, and fleet in the lead though there are these sections in the article. Please expand the lead to be a better summary of the article.
The image of the sheriff's dept. badge has a reduction request tag on it. Please search for a smaller version of the image to substitute. H1nkles (talk) 16:08, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding Authority

This section is a one-sentence paragraph. It needs to be expanded. Per the MoS stub paragraphs are not appropriate.
You refer to Maryland Police and Correctional Training Commission as MPCTC in the article, you need to first spell out the commission before you abbreviate it later in the article. See WP:MOSABBR for more information on this.H1nkles (talk) 16:14, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding History

I've added a fact template to the end of the first paragraph. You'll need to cite this information.
Remove the line of duty subsection and place the table in the "2002: deputies killed in the line of duty" subsection. Having both subsections is duplicative and unnecessary.
How could a drug sniffing dog in Arizona sniff out 32 pounds of Marijuana in a package in Maryland? Please clarify this sentence better. H1nkles (talk) 18:26, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding Duties

Quote, "Along with its traditional duties as the enforcement arm of the court, this Sheriff's Office responds to all 9-1-1 calls that are domestic-related in the County's District III, has all of its high schools with deputy sheriffs as the School Resource Officers, and is responsible for traffic enforcement in certain areas of the county" This is a run on sentence and should be split up and reworded to be more clear.
What other duties does the office have? H1nkles (talk) 18:29, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding Rank Structure

Quote, "The rank structure of the Sheriff's Office is modeled after the US Military. The ranks of Student Deputy through Corporal are non-competitive. Sergeant through Major are competitive. Lt. Colonel and Colonel are appointed by and serve at the pleasure of the Sheriff." You already said this, no need to repeat it. H1nkles (talk) 18:36, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding Fleet

The photo of the fleet vehicle is too large for the section, it spills over into the See also section and creates formatting problems. See WP:ACCESS for more information. H1nkles (talk) 17:35, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding References

The following references need more information such as publisher, author (if available), date, and accessdate: 1,2,4,7,8,23–29. See WP:CITE for more information. H1nkles (talk) 17:43, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Overall Review

The article has some significant issues. Here's a summary:

Lead needs to be expanded.
Prose needs a once over for flow and grammar.
Stub paragraphs.
Is there any more information out there? Try to be more comprehensive. With a department as old as this one wouldn't there be more to add to the history?
Check the reduction tag on the photo of the shield.
Some of the references are not formatter properly.

Fix these issues and then we can take another look at it. I'll hold it until the middle of next week. H1nkles (talk) 18:01, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So how is it coming? Can I review it for final GA determination or do you need a little more time? H1nkles (talk) 23:49, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've added a picture, moved stuff around, and expanded the intro and history. I think it should pass a GA nom! :) Thanks for the help!--It's me...Sallicio!^{$\color {Red}\oplus$} 02:02, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, looking much better, you still need a source for this sentence:

"As of September 2008, the deputy has recovered back to full duty" in the 2008: Deputy wounded in Laurel subsection.

One other thing that I forgot from the previous review, the photo in the lead should be aligned on the right rather than the left. Since it's fairly innocuous and could go anywhere in the article you should move it down becuase I think you have enough info in the Lead already. It shouldn't be left aligned in the lead though. Once those two things are fixed I'll pass it. H1nkles (talk) 16:05, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Out of curiosity, is this review done? No posts since the 18th, when only minor things are left. Wizardman 16:36, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I was curious, too.--It's me...Sallicio!^{$\color {Red}\oplus$} 00:59, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, it has been a very busy time for me. I've reviewed the article and it is ready to pass. I will pass it, thank you for your patience. H1nkles (talk) 19:28, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your help!--It's me...Sallicio!^{$\color {Red}\oplus$} 20:13, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]