User talk:Kendyl95
Welcome to The Wikipedia Adventure![edit]
- Hi ! We're so happy you wanted to play to learn, as a friendly and fun way to get into our community and mission. I think these links might be helpful to you as you get started.
--
| Mission 1 | Mission 2 | Mission 3 | Mission 4 | Mission 5 | Mission 6 | Mission 7 |
| Say Hello to the World | An Invitation to Earth | Small Changes, Big Impact | The Neutral Point of View | The Veil of Verifiability | The Civility Code | Looking Good Together |
Nice work![edit]
|
The WikiCookie | |
| You've learned how to use basic wikicode in your sandbox. You can always return there to experiment more. |
Posted automatically via sandbox guided tour. Kendyl95 (talk) 20:58, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
Practicing[edit]
Hey it's Reyna practicing on the communication. Reynapedro (talk) 16:48, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
References[edit]
ASACHOFF, E. (2014). Agency Enforcement of Spending Clause Statutes: A Defense of the Funding Cut-Off. Yale Law Journal, 124(2), 248-335. Reynapedro (talk) 17:04, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for March 21[edit]
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Internal affairs (law enforcement), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Investigation. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:42, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
Peer Review[edit]
a. You have added 438 words, which meets this criteria. b. The page is on topic other than small agencies should be tied in another topic instead of given its own. It seems out of place and creates a "chop" while reading. c. This is very well done. Nothing has bias and is represented fairly. d. References should be added after every discussion to add the validity needed for the page. And make sure a hyperlink is added for viewers. e. Along with criteria d, make sure everything is cited to give credit to the researchers and so we know that you didn't do the research. f. There are a few mechanical and grammar errors. Small agencies needs to be reviewed. Ex: Small agencies are more abundant than some may realize with 87% of police departments employer 25 or fewer sworn officers. g. This is good other than small agencies. Like suggested above, we would recommend adding this to another topic instead of giving it its own. h. All headings comply with guidelines. i. All wikilinks are good other than the "small agencies are more abundant". It takes you to a math page. Make sure they are tied to the correct Wikipedia page. j. Images or charts need to be added. There currently is none.
WELL DONE!
Bcarlsen (talk) 18:58, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
Professor Review[edit]
a. You have added 378 words (not counting those sections that you moved around to make the article flow better) which meets the word count criteria. b. Your revisions focus on the topic and don't go into unnecessary detail. c. Your revisions represent viewpoints fairly and without bias. d. A couple of your points need to be referenced. These include: the statement of SLC PD practices, the statistic about the percentage of small police departments (even if this is the same as the reference at the end of the paragraph, it should also be listed directly after the sentence with the statistic). e. The revisions do not include original research. f. Just a few minor grammatical revisions: "Internal Affairs Devision" should be "Internal Affairs Division" and "When the investigation the begins" should be fixed. g. The article has somewhat of a problem with flow. The only exception is the discussion of the SLC PD and Utah information. The lead section of the article mentions the creation of civilian review boards across the country and your revisions add another example. I'd suggest moving all of the specific examples (including those currently in the lead sections and your revisions) to a new section that discusses civilian review boards across the U.S. h. With the revisions suggested in part g, the revisions will comply with style guidelines. i. The revisions are appropriately wikilinked. j. The revisions include an image that is appropriately tagged with copyright status.
You're well on your way to a complete assignment. Just complete the minor revisions noted above and you'll be finished!
Profmwilliams (talk) 02:52, 2 April 2015 (UTC)