Template:Did you know nominations/Predictive policing
- The following discussion is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was: rejected by Tentinator 08:34, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
| DYK toolbox |
|---|
Predictive policing[edit]
... that predictive policing is claimed to be capable of "stopping crime before it starts"?
Created by A1candidate (talk). Nominated by Tentinator (talk) at 23:24, 20 December 2013 (UTC).
- I don't think you can make that claim in the hook. "is claimed to be capable" is more correcter. Drmies (talk) 18:30, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
Needs new hook. MOS Words to watch - Unsupported_attributions While you have taken the hook directly from the wording in the article lead, that lead says "has been described in the media". But when you actually read the source, which is the Los Angeles Times, that's from the title of the article "Stopping crime before it starts". Within the article, the LAPD and other officials do not make that exact claim - that's a conclusion the Times made. The researchers and LAPD are describing analyzing data and identifying where to concentrate their enforcement resources. It's the Times that is predicting this will stop crime before it starts. — Maile (talk) 23:58, 25 December 2013 (UTC)
- ALT1 ... that in Kent, 8.5% of all street crime occurred in locations predicted by predictive policing, beating the 5% from police analysts? Tentinator 13:36, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
Full review needed. (Struck original hook due to issues listed above.) BlueMoonset (talk) 07:15, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
While the article technically meets the minimum character requirement, that is only because it repeats information in the lead & body. Of course that is what a lead is supposed to do, but, for example, listing the US states that have implemented predictive policing twice in a 1500 byte articles seems to be overkill. More importantly, the article leaves out crucial information. For example, it makes no real attempt to explain how the prediction works - saying smothin like "similar to earthquake prediction" might be OK for the lead, but in the body we need details. The average reader is very unlikely to know how earthquake prediction works and thus will come away with no understanding of how predictive policing works. (The source material does do a nice job of explaining how it works, so it shouldn't be too hard to fix our article.) --ThaddeusB (talk) 19:47, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
