User talk:Ankit90
Welcome!
[edit]Hello, Ankit90, and welcome to Wikipedia! My name is Ian and I work with the Wiki Education Foundation; I help support students who are editing as part of a class assignment.
I hope you enjoy editing here. If you haven't already done so, please complete the student training, which introduces you to editing and Wikipedia's core principles. You may also want to check out the Teahouse, a community of Wikipedia editors dedicated to helping new users. Below are some resources to help you get started editing.
Handouts
|
|---|
Additional Materials
|
|
If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to contact me on my talk page. Ian (Wiki Ed) (talk) 02:25, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
Problems with upload of File:Grunt-logo.png
[edit]Thanks for uploading File:Grunt-logo.png. 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 Wikipedia:Media copyright questions.
For more information on using images, see the following pages:
Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 06:07, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
The page User:Ankit90/grunt has been speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This was done under the criteria for speedy deletion, because the content of the page appeared to be purely promotion of something or someone, and was unlikely to be suitable for an article (or at best would need a fundamental rewrite). Wikipedia is not a medium for promotion of anything, whether a company, product, group, service, person, religious or political belief, or anything else. Please read the general criteria for speedy deletion, particularly item G11, as well as the guidelines on spam. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. — ξxplicit 21:42, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
- Hi Explicit. I understand that there was something wrong with my article and I am ready to improve it. I would like some further clarification on why it was an unambiguous advertisement. Since this was my first ever wiki page and an important college assignment, I would be deeply grateful if you could undelete it. I can sandbox it to make sure that I ammend the article according to wikipedia standards. Kindly advice. --Ankit90 (talk) 17:55, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
- User:Explicit, while the draft could use some work on sourcing, I don't see how it's a CSD G11. Some clarification would be appreciated. Ian (Wiki Ed) (talk) 00:14, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
Hi, Ian. There were several issues with the aforementioned page, largely revolving around its tone and it being written in a how-to manner, which did seem to be promotional in nature. However, what I felt was the tipping point that made it eligible for WP:G11 was these following lines: "Grunt can be used to automate just about anything with minimal effort. Its a huge ecosystem with literally hundreds of plugins and still growing." It fell from a neutral point-of-view through these means. However, now that it has come to my attention that this was part of the education program, I do see that the page was written with good faith. I am willing to make some leeway and have restored the article in order for the student to further work on the page. — ξxplicit 00:58, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
- Hi Explicit. Thanks for restoring the article. I went through the wikipedia tutorial before starting this assignment. Even though I got the points mentioned in the tutorial, I never realized while editing, when the tone of the article started to incline towards promoting it. Now that you pointed out, I do realize what you are saying. My question is how do I make sure in the future that it doesn't happen again. Rest assured, I will make changes to make the tone neutral. --Ankit90 (talk)
- @Adam (Wiki Ed): you might be able to help here. Ian (Wiki Ed) (talk) 01:36, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
- Hi Ankit90. I'm thrilled to see you're working on an article about Grunt! I used to work with Ben Alman, so by the time Grunt became notable, it would've been inappropriate for me to write an article about it. The best way to approach this is to imagine what a reader of a general encyclopedia would be looking for. A reader interested in a piece of software may want to know who wrote it, what it is and where it is deployed. Information on how to install or use grunt should be left out, not because that info isn't useful but because it's best hosted at the project docs themselves. Imagine that you had written this article before grunt cli was released. You would have to come back and update an encyclopedia entry because of a logistical change in the project itself. Take a look at how SAS (software) or FreeBSD are structured--both of these are considered "good articles" by the community. They're much longer and more detailed than what you'll be able to write about Grunt (because there are many more sources available for them), but the structure should be instructive. They explain the history, development and adoption of the software so that a general reader can progress from "WTH is BSD" to some broad knowledge of the subject. The reader won't be able to stand up a BSD instance after reading the article, but that isn't our goal. For a shorter example, take a look at Hy. For a less compliant example (most of the article is code samples, but the introduction adopts the tone you'd want and presents the info you'd want), see Rake (software).
- For this subject, I recommend you take a look at news articles, blogs written by experts in the field (if you're having trouble identifying who might be considered an expert in this area, ask me on my talk page and I'll try to help), and books. There is no shortage of books written about JavaScript development that will mention grunt. Granted, a lot of these sources will spend a great deal of time on the sorts of things we don't cover too much on Wikipedia (code examples, tips, deployment, etc.), but some of them will cover it broadly.
- I'd suggest you structure it something like the following:
- Introduction: the lede of the article, summarizing the contents
- Origin: Why/when/where Grunt was developed.
- History: This can be a short section, since grunt is still nominally < 1.0, but the introduction of grunt-cli can be covered here as well as other changes on the way to 0.4.5
- Plugin ecosystem: You can talk a bit about the fact that plugins exist and that there's a relatively large number of them--how to find/use those plugins is probably less appropriate for wikipedia.
- Usage: How widespread is Grunt? How/where has front end development moved beyond grunt (gulp, etc.) in some cases.
- Example installation: It's not all bad! You should have one small section with code samples (as many software tooling articles do)
- When re-writing this I recommend you start small. Stub your article to the minimum information you have that is verified by reliable sources (don't worry, your old work will still be there in the history). As you find new sources, add them to the article and expand the content. Remember, a short, accurate article is preferable to a longer article that is difficult or impossible for a critical reader to verify. Again, please let me know if you need a hand with anything. I hope this helps, Adam (Wiki Ed) (talk) 13:25, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
- Hi, thanks for the detail @Adam (Wiki Ed):. I got your point. Since this requires a rewrite with a change in the structure itself, give me sometime. Since its being graded right now, I cannot edit as the date for editing has passed. Rest assured, once it is graded, I will definitely consider your points while restructuring the article. I have made minor adjustments to the article so that the unambiguous promotions are removed from the article. Once I am done with the restructuring, I will ping you on your page for your suggestions, if thats alright. Thanks everyone for resolving this issue. I will make sure the modified article comes out with the right tone and info.
- I'm not sure how your course is graded, but if you wanted to edit now you could, since the each revision of your page is stored indefinitely (see here for the current revision--as you make changes to the page that link will still exist, showing the page as it was last night). Adam (Wiki Ed) (talk) 15:49, 19 October 2015 (UTC)