User talk:Jjone051
Welcome![edit]
Hello, Jjone051, and welcome to Wikipedia! My name is Shalor 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 check out the student training library, 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 Resources
|
|
If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to contact me on my talk page. Shalor (Wiki Ed) (talk) 16:54, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
Notes[edit]
I've edited down your article - it needed editing for tone, flow, and original research. I also wanted to let you know that this needs sourcing to help show notability and back up claims - you have sourcing that goes to a general link rather than to the specific page on the given website that backs up the claims. Shalor (Wiki Ed) (talk) 16:32, 4 March 2020 (UTC)
- Original research is essentially any interpretation, connection, theory, or similar that we create on our own rather than summarizing source material. In other words, if something isn't explicitly stated in the source then it would be original research for us to make that connection or interpretation on our own. Tone also played an issue since some of the content came across as us making a comment on the artist and his work. Some of it may not have been intended to be an opinion or comment on their work per se, but was written in an introspective type of fashion rather than the formal style Wikipedia prefers. A lot of this was exacerbated by the lack of sourcing for the claims - anything that comes across as an interpretation and is unsourced is very likely to be removed.
- Finally, there were some statements that could be seen as subjective. For example, stating that something is the person or group's "most famous" can be kind of subjective unless we have an independent, reliable source that explicitly makes this claim, as someone could argue that something else they made was more famous. Even then the term fame is kind of a tricky one since fame is a term that comes with certain connotations. It's best to say that something is well known, as this is somewhat more neutral and is a term that Wikipedia commonly uses. I do want to add that another issue with this was that you stated that these were famous, but only used primary sources. This posed an issue because in order to back up claims of fame or notability, you'd need to have independent sourcing. It's one of the catches with primary sources - while the author(s) aren't necessarily going to lie outright, keep in mind that they will almost always write about themselves in a favorable light and try to promote themselves. This is something that wouldn't necessarily be an issue elsewhere but would be one on Wikipedia, since there's a need to ensure that everything is neutral and accurate. Subjective statements also run the risk of coming across as promotional and non-neutral, even if this wasn't the intent.
- Original research and subjective, promotional content can actually put an article at risk of deletion, if the next editor who comes along the page thinks that it's being used to advertise the individual. Ideally they would clean the article up, but not every editor will do this and some will assume that it's easier to start anew than to clean up an article. I don't always agree with this, but it's a reason why it's so important to make sure that everything is as neutral and well-sourced as possible. Shalor (Wiki Ed) (talk) 17:32, 16 March 2020 (UTC)