User talk:Ellen 307

Welcome to The Wikipedia Adventure!

 * 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.
 * The Wikipedia Adventure Start Page
 * The Wikipedia Adventure Lounge
 * The Teahouse new editor help space
 * Wikipedia Help pages

--

Problems with upload of File:Police corruption.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:Police corruption.jpg. You don't seem to have said where the image came from, who created it, or what the copyright status is. We require this information to verify that the image is legally usable on Wikipedia, and because most image licenses require giving credit to the image's creator.

To add this information, click on this link, then click the "Edit" tab at the top of the page and add the information to the image's description. If you need help, post your question on Media copyright questions.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:
 * Image use policy
 * Image copyright tags

Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 18:05, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

Peer review
A) You don't have complete 350 words, so I suggest that you focus on expanding the topic with the proper word count in a fair and unbiased way in order to complete the criteria. B) I think you are focused on the topic because you have included all the aspects of police corruption and nothing otherwise was said, such as biased opinions. C) The view point was fair because it states what happens in the police department without your bias and nothing OUT OF THE BOX was said. D) Reference sources are okay and are reliable sources. E) So far it doesn’t include original research and just states commonly known facts. F) So far I don’t see any mechanical errors with any of the edits, looks like you are going to fix the pages errors which is good. G) Not much has been edited to the main page but from what it looks like you are going to do from the suggestion on the talk page it seems that you will have organized sections so each section is relevant to the next and it seems you are going to make a better flow to the main article page. H) Not much has been edited to the main page but from what it looks like you are going to do from the suggestion on the talk page, you should be okay with complying with style guideline for lead sections, layout, etc. Just make sure to link things wiki page to wiki page, if you do add things that have a page. J) I saw that an image was added but taken down. I thought the caption was okay for the image and relevant to the topic. Looks like image was taken down because it wasn't tagged properly with copyright status so make sure you do that in the future.

Professor review
5a. So far, you've added 33 words, so you still need to add 317 words. There are quite a few suggestions for things to add to the page listed on the article's talk page, so if you need ideas you might start there.

5b. The two sentences that you added about the Rodney King case was taken down because the editor thought it was more about police misconduct instead of corruption. This would imply that they didn't think your edit was focused on the topic. Consider this editor's comment and if you have questions or disagree, start a section on the article talk page and ask the editor who took down the revision and other editors to weigh in on the issue. If you agree with the editor's comment, then you might thank the editor for pointing this out and then let them know that you are students working on the page so they know you're learning as you go along.

5c. The two sentences you added did represent the case fairly given the information found in reliable sources.

5d. Your revision referenced CQ Researcher, which is okay, but many people might not be able to access the source because the link went through weber.edu library. Instead, if you're going to use CQ researcher, find the article on the main CQ Researcher site (http://library.cqpress.com/cqresearcher/) and then link to it from there.

5e. Your revisions did not include original research.

5f. Your revisions were well-written, clear, and concise.

5g. The section you added (which was subsequently taken down) seemed to break up the flow of the article because it was between two subsections on the effects of police corruption. It would have made more sense after the subsection entitled "Investigations."

5h. Your revisions complied with style guidelines.

5i. Your revisions have not yet included Wikilinks. When you add more information, be sure to link to relevant Wikipedia pages.

5j. I see that your image was taken down again. You should take the same steps as I suggested with 5b. to consider and respond to the editor (it turns out that it's the same editor, but you should address each issue in separate sections on the talk page).

Profmwilliams (talk) 17:15, 3 April 2015 (UTC)