User:Resident Mario/Essays: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively

← Previous edit Next edit →

Content deleted Content added

VisualWikitext

Inline

Revision as of 15:39, 22 March 2009

Article Development

Article Development Stages

This is an information page.

It is not one of Wikipedia's policies or guidelines; rather, its purpose is to explain certain aspects of Wikipedia's norms, customs, technicalities, or practices. It may reflect differing levels of consensus and vetting.

Shortcuts

Some of Wikipedia's articles are comprehensive right from the outset, but most start off as stubs and ideally grow into well-written, comprehensive articles with time.

This page describes the stages in the life of an article and lists the ways in which you can help an article grow into the next stage. Skipping stages is not just permissible—it is, in fact, recommended! The following categories should give you an idea of how articles typically grow on Wikipedia.

Stages of an article

(Summary) The Journey of a Wikipedia Article

Legend

Account created

Searching and searching...

An article on the topic exists already. Make a redirect.

An article on the topic doesn’t exist

Finding reliable sources

Writing

Putting it on your subpage or somewhere else

Article gets speedy deleted

You keep on submitting it and you get blocked

Submitted as a draft

Draft submitted

Draft declined, then edited and re-submitted

Draft accepted

You may lose motivation to work on the article

Unpublished

Published

You just publish it without drafting (skip if you went via "Draft accepted")

Might get deleted by New Page patrol

Nice editors add sources, expand the article, and make it even better!

Doesn’t get vandalized

It gets vandalized (could get protected)

To being a good article and beyond!

Uncreated articles

Consider using a Wizard to help you create articles. See the Article Wizard.

Thank you.

Every article starts with an idea in the mind of a contributor. You can create articles about anything, as long as they belong in Wikipedia. It is a good idea to search first, so you are sure there has not been an article on the subject; if there is, a redirect may be appropriate. If you see a red link that strikes your fancy, create an article! (If you've not created an article before, see Your First Article.)

For more suggestions on how to think of subjects to contribute on, see Wikipedia:Contributing to Wikipedia.

Before you start, it's helpful to read the guidelines and tutorials on creating new articles to get an idea of what you should consider—such matters as the scope, format, references, and NPOV in a Wikipedia article.

Good ways to find articles to create:

Stubs

If you do not have the time to write a full article, consider writing a "stub". Stubs are very short articles—generally just a few sentences. These are the "ugly ducklings" of Wikipedia. With effort, they can mature into "swans".

Good ways to find stub articles and grow stubs:

To find stub templates appropriate for an article, see these WikiProject Stub sorting sub-pages.

See Wikipedia:WikiProject Stub sorting/Stub types for more information on existing stub types.

See Wikipedia:WikiProject Stub sorting/List of stubs for a compact list of all stub types.

Article stub placement

The article stub (or stubs) template is added after the last line of the article. For example:

Last line of the article.
(first blank line)
(second blank line)
{{stub}}

Talk page stub class

Article quality assessments are mainly performed by members of WikiProjects, who tag talk pages of articles. For beginning stub articles, the class=Stub parameter is added to the article's WikiProject banner on the talk page.

Developing articles

Shortcuts

Once a stub has real content, it is a real article and the article's stub template(s) can be removed. The vast majority of articles fall into this category. They may have weaknesses, so you are encouraged to copyedit them and, where you have the knowledge or do the necessary research, to add content.

As an article is improved in quality it goes through stages of development. Here is an example of the evolution of an article.

Good ways to find and improve developing articles (see below for more information):

Good articles

How to get great articles up to featured quality

Featured article

This star symbolizes the featured content on Wikipedia.

The featured articles are what we believe to be the best articles in Wikipedia. Before promotion to featured status, articles are reviewed at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates for compelling prose, accuracy, neutrality, and completeness, according to our featured article criteria. Wikipedians tend to be proud of featured articles to which they have contributed.

Once an article is certified as featured, it joins an exclusive group of featured content which is showcased across various community pages, including Portals and WikiProjects. The article could also receive the distinction of being featured on the main page. Before the article is scheduled to appear on the main page, it should receive a last review and polishing where possible.

Featured articles present our best work to people who might not know about Wikipedia. This is an excellent way to recruit new Wikipedians and obtain donations, both of which help Wikipedia immensely.

Featured articles are well polished, but there are usually small improvements that can still be made. Do not ever be afraid to correct mistakes or update information when you see an opportunity. No article is perfect, even though perfection is always our goal. We have a formal procedure for encouraging Wikipedians to review and improve featured articles: Featured Article Review.

How to develop an article

Shortcut

WP:DEVELOP

Suppose you want to create a good, or even perfect, Wikipedia article that deserves to be listed among our featured articles (those considered by consensus to be Wikipedia's best articles). Your goal is then to meet the featured article criteria. Here is a guide to achieving this.

Research

Once you have decided on an encyclopedic topic, use Wikipedia's search engine to find out what related material we already have. That way, you discover what already exists and can later create good links to and from other relevant articles.

Additional research is usually necessary to write a great article. A great article has to be verifiable and cite reliable sources which ideally should include books or peer-reviewed journal articles. Consider visiting a university or public library to identify and study the best sources. Consider searching Wikipedias in other languages, looking at what search engines such as Google can bring up, and reading the relevant articles from other encyclopedias, to form an idea of what topics should be covered, in what depth, to achieve a comprehensive summary coverage. The following sites may help you: Encyclopedia.com and Encyclopedia Britannica Online.

Finding relevant articles

There are several ways to find and retrieve articles online, without having to leave home. Google Scholar is an excellent source for finding sometimes-free online peer-reviewed articles; note that the free articles' entries are quickly identifiable for having a "View as HTML" link in the result page. Other search engines for scholarly open access articles include CORE and BASE. For a host of free, searchable newspapers, see Wikipedia:Free English newspaper sources.

Many libraries have agreements with paywalled database providers under which library users with current library cards can connect free to the databases from their home computers—that is, the users do not need to be physically present in the library. Check with your local public or academic library to find out to which databases it subscribes, and whether they have a mechanism in place for remote access. Some high-end databases (like InfoTrac and ProQuest) even carry scanned versions of articles as they were originally printed.

Wikipedians are also eligible to apply for access to paywalled research databases via the Wikipedia Library. Partners with the Wikipedia Library include:

EBSCO Full academic version (Academic Search Premier) has full text of millions of articles from over 4,600 sources. Full public library version (MasterFILE Premier) has full-text coverage of about 2,100 sources.
JSTOR has complete text of articles from several hundred scholarly journals from their beginning to approximately five years ago. It is operated by a consortium of universities. They include most of the "high prestige" journals in the humanities, social sciences, and natural sciences.
Questia Online Library allows full-text search and reading access to all 64,000+ books and 1,000,000+ journal, magazine, and newspaper articles in their collection. Their strength is full text of recent academic books by major publishers such as Oxford University Press, University of North Carolina Press, and Greenwood Press, along with thousands of older academic books that are available only in larger university libraries. Unlike most other online services, they offer short-term individual subscriptions for students and researchers.
Newspaperarchive.com and Newspapers.com Two separate newspaper databases, each including thousands of newspapers dating back hundreds of years.

Other paywalled general interest databases that may be available through your local library are:

Infotrac – OneFile database has full text of about 90 million articles from 1980 to the present. Widely available at academic and public libraries throughout North America. Operated by Thomson Gale (formerly Gale Group), a subsidiary of the Thomson Corporation.
LexisNexis – Full version (mostly accessed by lawyers and journalists) has millions of full-text articles (from magazines, journals, and newspapers), court opinions, statutes, treatises, transcripts, public records, and more. Academic version (available at many universities) offers large subsets of the legal and news databases.
ProQuest – Full version (ProQuest 5000) has full text of millions of articles from 7,400 sources as far back as 1971. The ProQuest Historical Newspapers database has images in PDF format of all issues of the New York Times published between 1851 and 2001. Most libraries offer access to only part of the huge ProQuest database, through account types like eLibrary, Platinum, Silver, Gold, or Discovery.

Academic libraries often subscribe to special interest databases with in-depth coverage, of which there are far too many to list here.

Factiva – Provides multiple language interfaces and multilingual content covering nearly 9,000 sources.

Finding relevant books

If you are doing in-depth research on a complex or controversial subject, you should obtain relevant books in addition to articles. If the subject is of historical interest, you may have to visit a library to obtain articles that were published before 1980, since few online databases contain such old articles.

To find books or periodicals stored as bound volumes, the best place to start is with the catalog of your local public library. If you have searched the catalogs of several local libraries without success, try searching library "union" catalogs. With one search in a union catalog, it is possible to determine which books are available on a subject in an entire county, state, province, or country. The largest union catalog is OCLC WorldCat, which claims to have worldwide coverage, though most of its member libraries are in North America.

Only by citing the best sources in a field can a Wikipedia article be taken seriously by its critics. For more on this issue, see Wikipedia:Verifiability.

If you are creating a brand-new article (see Wikipedia:Your first article), there are a couple of naming conventions that you should follow.

Writing

Start your article with a concise lead section or introduction defining the topic and mentioning the most important points. The reader should be able to get a good overview by only reading the lead, which should be between one and four paragraphs long, depending on the length of the article. See Wikipedia:Manual of Style (lead section).

Remember that, although you will be familiar with the subject you are writing about, readers of Wikipedia may not be, so it is important to establish the context of your article's subject early on. For instance, if you are writing an article about a sports event you should mention the sport and, if relevant, any national details: rather than

The Red Cup was a domestic league competition that ran between 1994 and 1996

it would be more helpful to write

The Red Cup was a domestic rugby league competition in New Caledonia that ran between 1994 and 1996

Again, rather than

Bobby the Salmon is a goalkeeper who joined the club in 2006

say

Bobby the Salmon is a football goalkeeper who joined Fulchester United in 2006

See our editing help for the format we use to produce links, emphasize text, lists, headlines etc. Make sure to link to other relevant Wikipedia articles. In addition, where appropriate, add links in other articles back to your article.

Do not simply copy-and-paste from one of the external resources mentioned above. See Copyrights for the details.

It is often a good idea to separate the major sections of your articles with section headlines. For many topics, a history section is very appropriate, outlining how thinking about the concept evolved over time.

If different people have different opinions about your topic, characterize that debate from the Neutral point of view.

Try to get your spelling right. Wikipedia does not yet contain a spell checker, but you can write and spell-check your article first in a word processor or text editor (which is a lot more comfortable than the Wikipedia text-box anyway) and then paste it into said text-box. Another option is an extension (such as ieSpell for Internet Explorer or SpellBound for Mozilla and old versions of Firefox – Firefox 2 and up feature built-in spell checking) that can be installed on your web browser and used as a spell checker in text boxes.

Keep the article in an encyclopedic style: add etymology or provenance (when available), look for analogies and eventual comparisons to propose. Be objective: avoid personal comments (or turn them into general statements, but only when they coincide), do not use personal forms (I found that...). The Wikipedia Manual of Style can help you with your English. You can post questions about English grammar and usage at the Wikipedia language and grammar desk.

Try to avoid using euphemisms, such as "passed away" for "died", or "made love" for "had sexual intercourse".

At the end, you should list the references you used and the best available external links about the topic. These references are what will allow Wikipedia to be the most trusted, reliable resource it can be.

Finishing touches

Finish the article with a good relevant image or graphic. See Graphics tutorials for practical help on drawing diagrams and modifying images, or make a request on the Graphic Lab. Many copyright-free image sources are listed at our public domain image resources. Please do not link to images on other servers; instead use the upload page. The sizing of images and other issues concerning images in articles are set out in the Manual of Style.

One way to get a good article is to bounce it back and forth between several Wikipedians. Use the Talk pages to refine the topic, ask for their confirmations, note their doubts: it is usually interesting to discover that, perhaps from the other side of the planet, after a while, some other contributors can check other sources, or propose different interpretations. The composition of a commonly agreed interpretation is the most important ingredient of a serious Wikipedia article.

It may also be useful to look up your subject in one of the foreign-language Wikipedias, such as the German or French editions. While the English-language Wikipedia is the biggest one in terms of the total number of articles it contains, you may find that other Wikipedias sometimes contain more in-depth articles, especially if the subject is of local importance. Even if your foreign language skills are not particularly developed, you may still glean important information from those articles, like birth dates, statistics, bibliographies, or the names of persons that are linked on the page. If you have incorporated the additional information, please also make the appropriate Interwiki links at the end of your article.

Do not neglect the External links and References sections. The most useful and accurate material that you have found with your Internet research might make good links for a reader, too. In addition, sometimes a standard work is mentioned repeatedly in connection with your topic. Mention it, with its author and publication date. Even better, obtain a copy and use it to check the material in the article.

In addition, remember to create links to your article from related articles and subjects. This includes any redirects your article may need, for instance, redirects for other capitalizations of your article title, abbreviations, plural versions, alternative spellings or common misspellings. This helps people find your article and may even help you find a related, already-written article. You can also create redirects from related subjects or subtopics which do not yet have their own articles (redirects with possibilities).

Peer review

You are encouraged to ask for feedback about the quality of an article at any time. Ask your fellow editors for their opinions, list outstanding issues, and areas to improve on article talk pages, get other editors involved. Networking to identify like-minded Wikipedians is one of the most important (and enjoyable) aspects of the project. It is best to have a reasonably well-developed article before you do this so that those giving feedback have something substantial to analyze. Wikipedia:Peer review is the normal route for evaluating articles.

External links

Evaluating Wikipedia (PDF download)—Tracing the evolution and evaluating the quality of articles (Wikimedia Foundation).
Jasmine Roberts — Writing for Strategic Communication Industries, Body of the article, Ohio State University Pressbooks

Checklist

This is an information page.

It is not one of Wikipedia's policies or guidelines; rather, its purpose is to explain certain aspects of Wikipedia's norms, customs, technicalities, or practices. It may reflect differing levels of consensus and vetting.

Shortcut

WP:PERFECT

New to Wikipedia? See the contributing to Wikipedia page or our tutorial for everything you need to know to get started.

An article striving for perfection...

Is on a notable topic.
- Fills a gap not provided by existing or related articles.
Has an appropriate structure.
- Has a great title so it can be linked to and found easily, and follows existing naming conventions.
- Starts with a clear description of the subject; the lead introduces and explains the subject and its significance clearly and accurately, without going into excessive detail.
Is well-written.
- Is clear; it is written to avoid ambiguity and misunderstanding, using a logical structure and plain, clear prose. It is free of redundant language.
- Is understandable; it is clearly expressed for both experts and non-experts in appropriate detail, and thoroughly explores and explains the subject.
- Is precise and explicit; it is free of vague generalities and half-truths that may arise from an imperfect grasp of the subject.
- Involves original writing but not original research; a Wikipedia article generally is the written work of its users. It will not violate another's copyright or plagiarize another's work, but its summary of information must still be completely reliably sourced. In addition, all quotes are marked with quotation marks and cited.
- Is engaging; the language is descriptive and has an interesting, encyclopedic tone.
- Follows standard writing conventions of modern language, including correct grammar, consistent verb tense, punctuation, and spelling.

Includes informative, relevant media content — including maps, portraits, artwork, photographs, audio tracks (recorded voice, speeches...), video tracks (films, animations...) and audiovisual media — that add to a reader's interest or understanding of the text, but not so much as to detract from it. Each medium should have an explanatory caption and ALT text.
Is of an appropriate length; it is long enough to provide sufficient information, depth, and analysis on its subject, without including unnecessary detail or information that would be more suitable in "sub-articles," related articles, or Wikimedia sister projects. It is not a stub.
- Is nearly self-contained; it includes essential information and terminology, and is comprehensible by itself, without requiring significant reading of other articles.
- Acknowledges and explores all aspects of the subject; it covers every encyclopedic angle of the subject.
- Is encyclopedic; it doesn't contain nonencyclopedic information.
Is completely neutral and unbiased; it has a neutral point of view, presenting competing views on controversies logically and fairly, and pointing out all sides without favoring particular viewpoints. The most factual and accepted views are emphasized, and minority views are given a lower priority. Sufficient information and references are provided so that readers can learn more about particular views.
- Is stable; A stable article is one which any side in a controversy can look at and say, "Yes, this article describes my side accurately and does not give an unfair advantage to the other side."
Makes use of verifiable sources.
- Is well-documented; all facts and opinions are cited from reputable sources, preferably sources that are accessible and up-to-date.
- Reflects expert knowledge; it is grounded in fact and on sound scholarly and logical principles.
Follows proper navigational procedures.
- Is not an orphan or a dead-end.
  - Branches out; it contains wikilinks and sources to other articles, and external information that add meaning to the subject.
  - Branches in; editors have found and edited other significant wiki pages which make mention of the topic, and linked them to the article.
- Is categorized for better searching and easier grouping.
- Has interlanguage links if possible.
- Observes proper red link standards; it does not have an excessive number of red links, or any red links that could not conceivably be turned into articles or redirects.
Has several high quality images which are relevant to the article.
Can happen but only with massive efforts and iterative editing. It's your choice if you want the perfect article to exist or not!

Solution

After 1731 the opera was not staged ~~again~~ for more than 200 years.

Explanation

"After" alone carries the sense.

E

There are three established methods available for the delignification of lignocellulosic biomass.

Solution

There are three established methods ~~available~~ for the delignification of lignocellulosic biomass.

Explanation

"Available" is redundant because its meaning is already contained in "established".
But much better would be to bin "There are", like this:
- "~~There are~~ Three established methods are available for the delignification of lignocellulosic biomass."
Hint: "There are ..." is often a sign that redundancy is lurking.

But why not simplify the ungainly "the delignification of"?

"Three established methods are available for ~~the delignification of~~ delignifying lignocellulosic biomass."

F

Bruckner's Symphony No. 3 was a turning point for the composer; but he revised it several times in the years following the work's premiere.

Solution

Bruckner's Symphony No. 3 was a turning point for the composer; but he revised it several times in the years following the ~~work's~~ premiere.

Explanation

In this context, what else would a premiere be of but Symphony No. 3?

How many did you get right?

All correct: excellent—consider moving straight to Redundancy renovations (1).
One or two wrong: fair.
More than two wrong: this skill needs attention—consider undertaking all of the exercises below.

Vermeer's *Lady writing a letter with her maid* (1670); nowadays, the relative ease and speed of written communication have resulted in a move towards plainer, less formal structures, including simpler, shorter sentences. But we know from looking at the text of the great writers that redundancy has always been intuitively avoided in good writing, even when more elaborate sentence structures were common.

Explanations

"Still" and "today" carry virtually the same meaning here. "Today" makes your reader momentarily ponder whether the meaning is "this very day" so it's probably a better candidate for removal.
You could probably remove "originally", since "was" is past tense and a product is normally launched only once. The only exception might be that there was an original launch, and a subsequent launch of an upgrade.

D

The coastal region is an exception and it enjoys a flourishing tourist industry.

Hint

There is an opportunity for an ellipsis here.

Solution

The coastal region is an exception and it enjoys a flourishing tourist industry.

Explanation

Ellipsis can involve, as here, the omission of one word or more that the reader will easily understand anyway: the pronoun is unnecessary. "The coastal region" is understood easily as the subject of both claims (In cumbersome fullness: "The coastal region is an exception and the coastal region enjoys a flourishing tourist industry.") Consider inserting a comma between these two propositions, after "exception".

E

Longer tonicisations may also include other secondary chords.

Solution

Longer tonicisations may ~~also~~ include other secondary chords.

Explanations

Even without the larger context, it's obvious that "also" is idle here; "other" is quite sufficient for the sense.
"Also", an additive connector, is almost always redundant.

F

This involves the provision of a reference section, complemented by inline citations for quotations and any material that is likely to be challenged.

Hint

Well, the word at issue may have meaning in special circumstances, but in many larger contexts it is lazily inserted where it adds nothing.

Solution

This involves the provision of a reference section, complemented by inline citations for quotations and ~~any~~ material ~~that is~~ likely to be challenged.

Explanation

"Any" adds the sense that there will not be much material, if any, of this type. Without "any", the reader will sense that material that is likely to be challenged is not uncommon in Wikipedia's articles. It may be difficult to decide, and not always worth worrying over. "That is": always check that you need such wording (here, it's at the utility–redundancy boundary).

G

Cystic fibrosis is a common hereditary genetic disorder that affects many different parts of the body.

Hint

Two issues: Similar parts? And are genes ever not involved in heredity?

Solution

Cystic fibrosis is a common hereditary ~~genetic~~ disorder that affects many ~~different~~ parts of the body.

Explanation

Either "hereditary" or "genetic" would be fine, depending on the context. "Many" is sufficient for the sense; the reader will assume that the "parts of the body" are different unless you state otherwise. As often, trying the opposite test reveals the wastage.

H

This relationship had already existed before Adobe purchased the company.

Hint

Timing.

Solution

This relationship ~~had already~~ existed before Adobe purchased the company.

Explanation

The past tense in "existed" does the work of "had already".

I

Although Ottawa is one of the Ojibwe dialects that has undergone the most linguistic change, it is still mutually intelligible with other dialects.

Hint

The errant word could be explained either as (1) a double-up with another word that indicates the logical relationship before and after the comma, or (2) an unnecessary "timing" word.

In ~~the year of~~ 1988, there were renewed efforts to boost the government's popularity.

Explanation

1988 is a year; your readers don't need to be told.

E

These aspects serve to distort what would otherwise be some of the attractive elements of the architecture, such as its structure and envelope.

Hint

Think of agency—specifically whether purpose is logical? Then think about sets and subsets.

Solution

These aspects ~~serve to~~ distort what would otherwise be ~~some of the~~ attractive elements of the architecture, such as its structure and envelope.

Explanations

"Serve to" implies purpose; but clearly no one would purposely try to distort what would have been attractive elements of the architecture.
Both "some" and "such as" are subset terms; you don't need both. There's a temptation to use "some" to convey the sense of "not all" elements of a set. But there's no need, because if you did mean "all of the elements", you'd write it explicitly. Thus, "some", as usual, is redundant: just writing "elements" (the plural of "an element") means "more than one of the attractive elements, but not all of them"; "the elements" would mean all of them.

Redundancy renovations (2)

A

As a result of making such decisions, poker players are able to maximise their odds and win more money.

Hint

There's a possible grammatical change at the start that would yield neater, shorter wording. A second change would remove an unnecessary emphasis on ability in favour of what actually happens.

Solution

~~As a result of~~ By making such decisions, poker players ~~are able to~~ can maximise their odds and win more money.

Explanation

It might just be that the larger context concerns players' ability, or the challenges they must overcome to make money, and that you might want to retain that nuance ("are able to"); but that would be unusual.

B

More than 300 million Led Zeppelin albums have been sold worldwide, including 109.5 million sales in the US alone.

Hints

Two words are very similar.
Logic allows for one word to be removed.
Another improvement could be made by removing a word that is probably an unnecessary amplification.

Solution

More than 300 million Led Zeppelin albums have been sold ~~worldwide~~, including 109.5 million ~~sales~~ in the US ~~alone~~.

Explanations

"Sold" doesn't need to be reinforced here by "sales"; this is an "ellipsis", where Led Zeppelin album sales are assumed.
"In the US" is already a subset of something, and the default assumption is "worldwide", which can be dropped unless there's doubt in the larger context (for example, if "the OECD" had just been mentioned).
Adding "alone" seems unnecessary, but if particular emphasis were needed, perhaps it could be retained.

C

Apart from the poets mentioned in the Kavirajamarga, later Kannada writers have referred to three poets as being eminent among their predecessors.

Hint

There's an ellipsis opportunity and an unnecessary verb.

Solution

Apart from the poets mentioned in the Kavirajamarga, later Kannada writers have referred to three ~~poets~~ as ~~being~~ eminent among their predecessors.

Explanations

The second occurrence of "poets" can be omitted as an ellipsis.
"Being" is unnecessary; the grammar has now shifted to referring to something as X; this requires no verb be, since "as" does the job of equating.

D

Due to problems with some of the more novel features of Bulleid's design, all members of the class were subsequently rebuilt by British Railways during the late 1950s, losing their air-smoothed casings in the process. A third of the class avoided the scrapper, and they can be seen on heritage railways throughout Great Britain.

Hint

Remove five words (from three patches of text).

Solution

Due to problems with some of the more novel features of Bulleid's design, all members of the class were ~~subsequently~~ rebuilt by British Railways during the late 1950s, losing their air-smoothed casings ~~in the process~~. A third of the class avoided the scrapper, and ~~they~~ can be seen on heritage railways throughout Great Britain.

Explanations

"Subsequently" is redundant because the sequence of events is clear without it.
In the process reiterates when they were rebuilt. Replacing losing with and lost would remove a comma.
"They" can be removed and understood "silently" by the reader (ellipsis).
"Some of" seems to be necessary here as a subset term.

E

He contributed to research that led to the finding of a cure for malaria.

Hint

Too many links in the chain of meaning?

Solution

He contributed to research that led to ~~the finding of~~ a cure for malaria.

Further difficult exercises

These examples will require varying amounts of recasting in your head.

A

The end of ship-building—the result of a factional struggle in the Chinese court—had an enduring effect throughout the subsequent existence of imperial China.

Hint

A cumbersome sentence. It's another time issue: "end", "enduring", "throughout", "existence".

Solution

The end of ship-building—the result of a factional struggle in the Chinese court—had an enduring effect ~~throughout the subsequent existence of~~ on imperial China.

Explanation

Your readers will assume that imperial China had an existence that spanned time, and that the end of ship-building didn't have a retroactive influence; so there's no need to say it explicitly.

B

The majority of critics gave the film negative reviews.

Hint

Try to replace three words with one.

Solution

~~The majority of~~ Most critics gave the film negative reviews.

Explanation

"The majority of" is unnecessarily precise here, unless you really want to emphasise "more than half". Yes, English does have the potential to be ugly.

C

The territory's path of evolution has been a challenge for the government.

Hint

Two consecutive words could easily be removed.

Solution

The territory's ~~path of~~ evolution has been a challenge for the government.

Explanation

Evolution follows a path in any case, so "path" should not be specified. One reader suggested further shrinkage: "The territory's path of evolution has challenged the government." Exactly the right thinking, but always check that you haven't changed the meaning, which, here, may now have been made stronger than the writer intended.

D

Sport is a compulsory activity for all students; teams usually have training two times a week.

Hint

Sport is an activity, isn't it. Remove two isolated words, and replace four consecutive words with one. (Six words could be removed, and two inserted.)

Solution

Sport is a compulsory ~~activity~~ for all students; teams usually ~~have training two times~~ train twice a week.

Explanations

Sport is an activity, so there's no need to tell us that. "Have training" is a loose expression, analogous to "have classes"; in writing, something neater and simpler is required.
Where possible, use one word for two ("twice" for "two times").

E

During a complex history, four local communities have tried to become the capital over the years.

Hint

"History" says it already.

Solution

During a complex history, four local communities have tried to become the capital ~~over the years~~.

Explanation

"Over the years" adds nothing to what we already know is a historical context.

Longer examples

Redundancy occurs not only because your intended meaning is already conveyed by other words in the sentence; the wider context you've established in the text can make wording redundant. Picking out redundant wording from longer windows of text brings us closer to the actual editing experience on Wikipedia.

At the end of each "problem", we tell you how many incidences of redundancy the text contains. See if you can mentally tick them off as you read through, before hitting the Show Hint button to reveal the general location of each redundancy.

A

The eye of a storm is a region of mostly calm weather found at the centre of a tropical cyclone. Typically 30–65 km in diameter, the eye is surrounded by the eyewall, where the most severe weather of a cyclone occurs. A cyclone's lowest barometric pressure occurs in the eye, and can be as much as 15% below the atmospheric pressure outside of the storm. The distance between the centre of the eye and eyewall defines the radius of maximum wind for a tropical cyclone. [Five incidences of redundancy]

Hint

The eye of a storm is a region of mostly calm weather found at the centre of a tropical cyclone. Typically 30–65 km in diameter, the eye is surrounded by the eyewall, where the most severe weather of a cyclone occurs. A cyclone's lowest barometric pressure occurs in the eye, and can be as much as 15% below the atmospheric pressure outside of the storm. The distance between the centre of the eye and eyewall defines the radius of maximum wind for a tropical cyclone.

Solution

The eye ~~of a storm~~ is a region of mostly calm weather ~~found~~ at the centre of a tropical cyclone. Typically 30–65 km in diameter, the eye is surrounded by the eyewall, where the most severe weather ~~of a cyclone~~ occurs. ~~A cyclone's~~ The lowest barometric pressure occurs in the eye, and can be as much as 15% below the atmospheric pressure outside of the storm. The distance between the centre of the eye and eyewall defines the radius of maximum wind for a tropical cyclone.

Explanations

"Of a storm" and "of a cyclone" are readily recoverable from the wider context; "a cyclone's" can go for the same reason.
"Found" is like "situated": fluff. We just don't need to visualise the meteorologist staring at the radar monitor "finding" the eye of the storm.
"Outside of" is a lapse into looseness; the "of" should be binned even in speech.

B

Coronation Street is Britain's longest-running television soap opera, first broadcast on Friday 9 December 1960 in the Granada region of ITV. The program has consistently been the most highly rated program on British television. Since its launch, Coronation Street has been broadcast in many countries worldwide, including Canada, Australia, Belgium and Holland, and has also been translated into five languages. Its storylines have covered diverse topics and themes, including death, marriage, divorce and murder. [Five incidences of redundancy]

Hint

Coronation Street is Britain's longest-running television soap opera, first broadcast on Friday 9 December 1960 in the Granada region of ITV. The program has consistently been the most highly rated program on British television. Since its launch, Coronation Street has been broadcast in many countries worldwide, including Canada, Australia, Belgium and Holland, and has also been translated into five languages. Its storylines have covered diverse topics and themes, including death, marriage, divorce and murder.

Solution

Coronation Street is Britain's longest-running television soap opera, first broadcast on Friday 9 December 1960 in the Granada region of ITV. The program has consistently been the most highly rated ~~program~~ on British television. ~~Since its launch,~~ Coronation Street has been broadcast in many countries ~~worldwide~~, including Canada, Australia, Belgium and Holland, and has ~~also~~ been translated into five languages. Its storylines have covered diverse ~~topics and~~ themes, including death, marriage, divorce and murder.

Explanations

The second "program" can be removed through ellipsis.
"Since its launch" is logically assumed.
"Worldwide" doesn't say much after "In many countries"; it implies that these countries are widely spread around the world, but this is obvious from the subsequent list.
"Also", as usual, is idle.
"Topics" is logically assumed from the context; the list is of themes, not topics, so the sentence is improved by the removal.

C

After a recommendation from Dutch admirals saying that the Koninklijke Marine should be bolstered, the Minister of Defence ordered the Navy to prepare designs for a battlecruiser class. A preliminary plan by Dutch designers was completed in July 1939, but as they had never designed any sort of modern capital ship (the battleships of 1913 having been of foreign design), the plans did not reflect any of the advances in warship design that had come about after the First World War; in particular, the armour protection was totally outmoded. [Five incidences of redundancy]

Hint

After a recommendation from Dutch admirals saying that the Koninklijke Marine should be bolstered, the Minister of Defence ordered the Navy to prepare designs for a battlecruiser class. A preliminary plan by Dutch designers was completed in July 1939, but as they had never designed any sort of modern capital ship (the battleships of 1913 having been of foreign design), the plans did not reflect any of the advances in warship design that had come about after the First World War; in particular, the armour protection was totally outmoded.

Solution

After a recommendation from Dutch admirals ~~saying~~ that the Koninklijke Marine ~~should~~ be bolstered, the Minister of Defence ordered the Navy to prepare designs for a battlecruiser class. A preliminary plan by Dutch designers was completed in July 1939, but as they had never designed ~~any sort of~~ a modern capital ship (the battleships of 1913 having been of foreign design), the plans did not reflect ~~any of~~ the advances in warship design ~~that had come about~~ after the First World War; in particular, the armour protection was totally outmoded.

Articles covering subtopics

Wikipedia articles tend to grow in a way that leads to the natural creation of new articles. The text of any article consists of a sequence of related but distinct subtopics. When there is enough text in a given subtopic to merit its own article, that text can be summarized in the present article and a link provided to the more detailed article. Cricket is an example of an article covering subtopics: it is divided into subsections that give an overview of the sport, with each subsection leading to one or more subtopic articles.

Information style and tone

Shortcuts

Two styles, closely related and not mutually exclusive, tend to be used for Wikipedia articles. The tone, however, should always remain formal, impersonal, and dispassionate.

These styles are summary style, which is the arrangement of a broad topic into a main article and side articles, each with subtopical sections; and the inverted pyramid style (or news style, though this term is ambiguous), which prioritizes key information to the top, followed by supporting material and details, with background information at the bottom.

A feature of both styles, and of all Wikipedia articles, is the presence of the lead section, a summarizing overview of the most important facts about the topic. The infobox template found at the top of many articles is a further distillation of key points.

Summary style

Summary style may apply both across a category of articles and within an article. Material is grouped and divided into sections that logically form discrete subtopics, and which over time may spin off to separate articles in order to prevent excessive article length as the main article grows. As each subtopic is spun off, a concise summary of it is left behind with a pointer (usually using the {{Main}} template) to the new side article.

There are three main advantages to using summary style:

Different readers want varying amounts of detail, and this style permits them to choose how much they are exposed to. Some readers need just a quick summary and are satisfied by the lead section; others seek a moderate amount of info, and will find the main article suitable to their needs; yet others want a lot of detail, and will be interested in reading the side articles.
An article that is too long becomes tedious to read. Progressively summarizing and spinning off material avoids overwhelming the reader with too much text at once.
An excessively detailed article is often one that repeats itself or exhibits writing that could be more concise. The development of summary-style articles tends to naturally clear out redundancy and bloat, though in a multi-article topic this comes at the cost of some necessary cross-article redundancy (i.e., a summary of one article in another).

The exact organizing principle of a particular summary-style article is highly context-dependent, with various options, such as chronological, geographical, and alphabetical (primarily in lists), among others.

Some examples of summary style are the featured articles Association football and Music of the Lesser Antilles.

Inverted pyramid

Shortcut

WP:PYRAMID

Some Wikipedians prefer using the inverted pyramid structure of journalism. This information presentation technique is found in short, direct, front-page newspaper stories and the news bulletins that air on radio and television. This is a style used only within a single article, not across a category of them.

The main feature of the inverted pyramid is placement of important information first, with a decreasing importance as the article advances. Originally developed so that the editors could cut from the bottom to fit an item into the available layout space, this style encourages brevity and prioritizes information, because many people expect to find important material early, and less important information later, where interest decreases.

Encyclopedia articles are not required to be in inverted pyramid order, and often aren't, especially when complex. However, a familiarity with this convention may help in planning the style and layout of an article for which this approach is a good fit. Inverted-pyramid style is most often used with articles in which a chronological, geographical, or other order will not be helpful. Common examples are short-term events, concise biographies of persons notable for only one thing, and other articles where there are not likely to be many logical subtopics, but a number of facts to prioritize for the reader.

The lead section common to all Wikipedia articles is, in essence, a limited application of the inverted pyramid approach. Virtually all stub articles should be created in inverted-pyramid style, since they basically consist of just a lead section. Consequently, many articles begin as inverted-pyramid pieces and change to summary style later as the topic develops, often combining the approaches by retaining a general inverted pyramid structure, but dividing the background material subtopically, with summary pointers to other articles. The subtopic sections can also be constructed using inverted pyramid structure so that readers skimming the sections get the most important information first before moving to the next section.

Tone

Shortcuts

Wikipedia is not a manual, guidebook, textbook, or scientific journal. Articles and other encyclopedic content should be written in a formal tone. Standards for formal tone vary a bit depending upon the subject matter but should usually match the style used in Featured- and Good-class articles in the same category. Encyclopedic writing has a fairly academic approach, while remaining clear and understandable. Formal tone means that the article should not be written using argot, slang, colloquialisms, doublespeak, legalese, or jargon that is unintelligible to an average reader; it means that the English language should be used in a businesslike manner.

Use of pronouns

Shortcuts

Articles should not be written from a first- or second-person perspective. In prose writing, the first-person (I/me/my and we/us/our) point of view and second-person (you and your) point of view typically evoke a strong narrator. While this is acceptable in works of fiction and in monographs, it is unsuitable in an encyclopedia, where the writer should be invisible to the reader. Moreover, the first person often inappropriately implies a point of view inconsistent with the neutrality policy, while the second person is associated with the step-by-step instructions of a how-to guide, which Wikipedia is not. First- and second-person pronouns should ordinarily be used only in attributed direct quotations relevant to the subject of the article.

There can be exceptions to these guidelines. For instance, the "inclusive we" widely used in professional mathematics writing is sometimes used to present and explain examples in articles, although discouraged on Wikipedia even for that subject. Use common sense to determine whether the chosen perspective is in the spirit of the guidelines.

Gender-neutral pronouns should be used (or pronouns avoided) where gendered language is not necessary, and especially when gender is not specific or unknown. (See WP:Gender-neutral language, and WP:Manual of Style § Identity, for further information.)

News style or persuasive writing

Shortcuts

As a matter of policy, Wikipedia is not written in news style (in any sense other than some use of the inverted pyramid, above), including tone. The encyclopedic and journalistic intent and audience are different. Especially avoid bombastic wording, attempts at humor or cleverness, reliance on primary sources, editorializing, recentism, pull quotes, journalese, and headlinese.

Similarly, avoid news style's close sibling, persuasive writing, which has many of those faults and more of its own, most often various kinds of appeals to emotion and related fallacies. This style is used in press releases, advertising, op-ed writing, activism, propaganda, proposals, formal debate, reviews, and much tabloid and sometimes investigative journalism. It is not Wikipedia's role to try to convince the reader of anything, only to provide the salient facts as best they can be determined, and the reliable sources for them.

Colloquial, emphatic or poetic language

Shortcuts

Another error of writing approach is attempting to make bits of material "pop" (an undue weight problem), such as with excessive emphasis, over-capitalization, use of contractions, unnecessary acronyms and other abbreviations, the inclusion of hyperbolic adjectives and adverbs, or the use of unusual synonyms or loaded words. Just present the sourced information without embellishment, agenda, fanfare, cleverness, or conversational tone.

An extreme example of hyperbole and emphatic language taken from Star Canopus diving accident as of 28 December 2019 (fixed in the next two revisions) reads:

Miraculously both divers survived the 294-foot fall, but now they faced a harrowing predicament. ... Helplessly trapped, with nothing to keep them warm, ... all they could do was huddle together and pray that rescuers would find them in time. ... But time was not on their side.

This was fixed to:

Both divers survived the 294-foot fall.

See Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Words to watch for other examples. Avoid using words and phrases like terrible, rising star, curiously, championed the likes of or on the other side of the pond, unless part of a quotation or stated as an external viewpoint.

Punctuation marks that appear in the article should be used only per generally accepted practice. Exclamation marks (!) should be used only if they occur in direct quotations.

Rhetorical questions

Shortcut

WP:RHETORICAL

As with exclamation marks, question marks (?) should also generally only be used if they occur in direct quotations; do not pose rhetorical questions for the reader.

For example, do not write:

There are many environmental concerns when it comes to industrial effluent. How can these be solved? Well, one solution involves ...

Rhetorical questions can occasionally be used, when appropriate, in the presentation of material, but only when the question is asked by the material under consideration, not being asked in Wikipedia's own voice.

For example:

One model of policy analysis is the "five-E approach", which consists of examining a policy in terms of:

Effectiveness

How well does it work (or how well will it be predicted to work)?

Efficiency

How much work does or will it entail? Are there significant costs associated with this solution, and are they worth it? ...^[2]

Inappropriate lists

A related presentation problem is "info-dumping" by presenting information in the form of a long, bulleted list when it would be better as normal prose paragraphs. This is especially true when the items in the list are not of equal importance, or are not really comparable in some other way, and need context. Using explanatory prose also helps identify and remove trivia; if we cannot explain to readers why something is important, then it is not important.

Provide context for the reader

Shortcuts

Wikipedia is an international encyclopedia. People who read Wikipedia have different backgrounds, education and opinions. Make your article accessible and understandable for as many readers as possible. Assume readers are reading the article to learn. It is possible that the reader knows nothing about the subject, so the article needs to explain the subject fully.

Avoid using jargon whenever possible. Consider the reader. An article entitled "Use of chromatic scales in early Baroque music" is likely to be read by musicians, and technical details and terms are appropriate, linking to articles explaining the technical terms. On the other hand, an article entitled "Baroque music" is likely to be read by laypersons who want a brief and plainly written overview, with links to available detailed information. When jargon is used in an article, a brief explanation should be given within the article. Aim for a balance between comprehensibility and detail so that readers can gain information from the article.

Evaluating context

Here are some thought experiments to help you test whether you are setting enough context:

Does the article make sense if the reader gets to it as a random page?
Imagine yourself as a layperson in another English-speaking country. Can you figure out what or who the article is about? Can you figure out whether a particular place or time is relevant?
Can people tell what the article is about if the first page is printed out and passed around?
Would a reader want to follow some of the links? Do sentences still make sense if they can't?

Build the web

Remember that every Wikipedia article is tightly connected to a network of other topics. Establishing such connections via wikilink is a good way to establish context. Because Wikipedia is not a long, ordered sequence of carefully categorized articles like a paper encyclopedia, but a collection of randomly accessible, highly interlinked ones, each article should contain links to more general subjects that serve to categorize the article. When creating links, do not go overboard, and be careful to make your links relevant. It is not necessary to link the same term twelve times (although if it appears in the lead, then near the end, it might be a good idea to link it twice).

Avoid making your articles orphans. When you write a new article, make sure that one or more other pages link to it, to lessen the chances that your article will be orphaned through someone else's refactoring. Otherwise, when it falls off the bottom of the Recent Changes page, it will disappear into the Mariana Trench. There should always be an unbroken chain of links leading from the Main Page to every article in Wikipedia; following the path you would expect to use to find your article may give you some hints as to which articles should link to your article.

State the obvious

Shortcut

WP:OBVIOUS

State facts that may be obvious to you, but are not necessarily obvious to the reader. Usually, such a statement will be in the first sentence or two of the article. For example, consider this sentence:

The Ford Thunderbird was conceived as a response to the Chevrolet Corvette and entered production for the 1955 model year.

Here no mention is made of the Ford Thunderbird's fundamental nature: it is an automobile. It assumes that the reader already knows this—an assumption that may not be correct, especially if the reader is not familiar with Ford or Chevrolet. Perhaps instead:

The Ford Thunderbird was a car manufactured in the United States by the Ford Motor Company.

However, there is no need to go overboard. There is no need to explain a common word like "car". Repetition is usually unnecessary, for example:

Shoichi Yokoi was conscripted into the Imperial Japanese Army in 1941.

conveys enough information (although it is not a good first sentence). However, the following is not only verbose but redundant:

Shoichi Yokoi was a Japanese soldier in Japan who was drafted into the Imperial Japanese Army in 1941.

Lead section

As explained in more detail at Wikipedia:Lead section § Introductory text, all but the shortest articles should start with introductory text (the "lead"). The lead should establish significance, include mention of consequential or significant criticism or controversies, and be written in a way that makes readers want to know more. The appropriate length of the lead depends on that of the article, but should normally be no more than four paragraphs. The lead itself has no heading and, on pages with more than three headings, automatically appears above the table of contents, if present.

Opening paragraph

Shortcut

WP:BETTER/GRAF1

Normally, the opening paragraph summarizes the most important points of the article. It should clearly explain the subject so that the reader is prepared for the greater level of detail that follows. If further introductory material is appropriate before the first section, it can be covered in subsequent paragraphs in the lead. Introductions to biographical articles commonly double as summaries, listing the best-known achievements of the subject. Because some readers will read only the opening of an article, the most vital information should be included.

First sentence content

The article should begin with a short declarative sentence, answering two questions for the nonspecialist reader: "What (or who) is the subject?" and "Why is this subject notable?"^[3]

If possible, the page title should be the subject of the first sentence:^[4] However, if the article title is merely descriptive—such as Electrical characteristics of dynamic loudspeakers—the title does not need to appear verbatim in the main text. Similarly, where an article title is of the type "List of ...", a clearer and more informative introduction to the list is better than verbatim repetition of the title.
When the page title is used as the subject of the first sentence, it may appear in a slightly different form, and it may include variations.^[5] Similarly, if the title has a parenthetical disambiguator, the disambiguator should be omitted in the text.^[6]
If its subject is amenable to definition, then the first sentence should give a concise definition: where possible, one that puts the article in context for the nonspecialist.^[7] Similarly, if the subject is a term of art, provide the context as early as possible.^[8]
If the article is about a fictional character or place, make sure to say so.^[9]

First sentence format

As a general rule, the first (and only the first) appearance of the page title should be in boldface as early as possible in the first sentence:
An electron is a subatomic particle that carries a negative electric charge.
However, if the title of a page is descriptive and does not appear verbatim in the main text, then it should not be in boldface. So, for example, Electrical characteristics of dynamic loudspeakers begins with:
The chief electrical characteristic of a dynamic loudspeaker's driver is its electrical impedance as a function of frequency.
If the subject of the page is normally italicized (for example, a work of art, literature, album, or ship) then its first mention should be both bold and italic text; if it is usually surrounded by quotation marks, the title should be bold but the quotation marks should not:
Las Meninas (Spanish for The Maids of Honour) is a 1656 painting by Diego Velázquez, ...
"Yesterday" is a pop song originally recorded by The Beatles for their 1965 album Help!
If the subject of the page has a common abbreviation or more than one name, the abbreviation (in parentheses) and each additional name should be in boldface on its first appearance:
Sodium hydroxide (Na OH), also known as lye, caustic soda and (incorrectly, according to IUPAC nomenclature) sodium hydrate, is ...
Use as few links as possible before and in the bolded title. Thereafter, words used in a title may be linked to provide more detail:
Arugam Bay is a bay situated on the Indian Ocean in the dry zone of Sri Lanka's southeast coast.

The rest of the opening paragraph

Then proceed with a description. Remember, the basic significance of a topic may not be obvious to nonspecialist readers, even if they understand the basic characterization or definition. Tell them. For instance:

Peer review, known as refereeing in some academic fields, is a scholarly process used in the publication of manuscripts and in the awarding of money for research. Publishers and agencies use peer review to select and to screen submissions. At the same time, the process assists authors in meeting the standards of their discipline. Publications and awards that have not undergone peer review are liable to be regarded with suspicion by scholars and professionals in many fields.

The rest of the lead section

If the article is long enough for the lead section to contain several paragraphs, then the first paragraph should be short and to the point, with a clear explanation of what the subject of the page is. The following paragraphs should give a summary of the article. They should provide an overview of the main points the article will make, summarizing the primary reasons the subject matter is interesting or notable, including its more important controversies, if there are any.

The appropriate length of the lead section depends on the total length of the article. As a general guideline:

Article length	Lead length
Fewer than 15,000 characters	One or two paragraphs
15,000–30,000 characters	Two or three paragraphs
More than 30,000 characters	Three or four paragraphs

"Lead follows body"

Shortcut

WP:LEADFOLLOWSBODY

The sequence in which you edit should usually be: first change the body, then update the lead to summarize the body. Several editors might add or improve some information in the body of the article, and then another editor might update the lead once the new information has stabilized. Don't try to update the lead first, hoping to provide direction for future changes to the body. There are three reasons why editing the body first and then making the lead reflect it leads to improvement of articles.

First, it keeps the lead in sync with the body. The lead, being a summary of the article, promises that the body will deliver fuller treatment of each point. Generally, wiki pages are imperfect at all times, but they should be complete, useful articles at all times. They should not contain "under construction" sections or refer to features and information that editors hope they will contain in the future. It's much worse for the lead to promise information that the body does not deliver than for the body to deliver information that the lead does not promise.

Second, good ways to summarize material usually only become clear after that material has been written. If you add a new point to the lead before it's covered in the body, you only think you know what the body will eventually contain. When the material is actually covered in the body, and checked and improved, usually by multiple editors, then you know. (If having a rough, tentative summary helps you write the body, keep your own private summary, either on your computer or in your User space.)

Third, on contentious pages, people often get into edit wars over the lead because the lead is the most prominent part of the article. It's much harder to argue constructively over high-level statements when you don't share common understanding of the lower-level information that they summarize. Space is scarce in the lead, so people are tempted to cram too much into one sentence, or pile on lots of references, in order to fully state and prove their case—resulting in an unreadable lead. In the body, you have all the space you need to cover subtleties and to cover opposing ideas fairly and in depth, separately, one at a time. Once the opposing ideas have been shaken out and covered well in the body, editing the lead without warring often becomes much easier. Instead of arguing about what is true or what all the competing sources say, now you are just arguing over whether the lead fairly summarizes what's currently in the body.

Use other languages sparingly

It is fine to include foreign terms as extra information, but avoid writing articles that can only be understood if the reader understands the foreign terms. Such words are equivalent to jargon, which should be explained somehow. In the English-language Wikipedia, the English form does not always have to come first: sometimes the non-English word is better as the main text, with the English in parentheses or set off by commas after it, and sometimes not. For example, see Perestroika.

Shortcut

WP:NONENGLISHTITLE

Non-English words in the English-language Wikipedia should be written in italics. Non-English words should be used as titles for entries only as a last resort. Again, see Perestroika.

English title terms taken from a language that does not use the Roman alphabet can include the native spelling in parentheses. See, for example, I Ching (simplified Chinese: 易经; traditional Chinese: 易經; pinyin: Yìjīng) or Sophocles (Greek: Σοφοκλῆς). The native spelling is useful for precisely identifying foreign words, since transliterations may be inaccurate or ambiguous. Foreign terms within the article body do not need native spellings if they can be specified as title terms in separate articles; just link to the appropriate article on first occurrence.

Use color sparingly

If possible, avoid presenting information with color only within the article's text and in tables.

Color should only be used sparingly, as a secondary visual aid. Computers and browsers vary, and you cannot know how much color, if any, is visible on the recipient's machine. Wikipedia is international: colors have different meaning in different cultures. Too many colors on one page look cluttered and unencyclopedic. Specifically, use the color red only for alerts and warnings.

Awareness of color should be allowed for low-vision viewers: poor lighting, color blindness, screen reader software, dark or overbright screens, monochrome screens, and the wrong contrast/color settings on the display screen.

Use clear, precise and accurate terms

Be concise

Shortcut

WP:TERSE

Articles should use only necessary words. This does not mean using fewer words is always better; rather, when considering equivalent expressions, choose the more concise.

Vigorous writing is concise. A sentence should contain no unnecessary words, a paragraph no unnecessary sentences, for the same reason that a drawing should have no unnecessary lines and a machine no unnecessary parts. This requires not that the writer make all his sentences short, or that he avoid all detail and treat his subjects only in outline, but that every word tell.
— William Strunk, Jr. from the 1918 work, The Elements of Style

Reduce sentences to the essentials. Wordiness does not add credibility to Wikipedia articles. Avoid circumlocutions like "due to the fact that" in place of "because", or "at the present time" for "currently". Ongoing events should be qualified with "as of 2024". Wikipedia "grammar bots" will replace these types of expressions with correct wording.

Conciseness does not justify removing information from an article.

Principle of least astonishment

Shortcuts

When the principle of least astonishment is successfully employed, information is understood by the reader without struggle. The average reader should not be shocked, surprised, or confused by what they read. Do not use provocative language. Instead, offer information gently. Use consistent vocabulary in parts that are technical and difficult. To work out which parts of the sentence are going to be difficult for the reader, try to put yourself in the position of a reader hitherto uninformed on the subject.

You should plan your page structure and links so that everything appears reasonable and makes sense. A link should not take readers to somewhere other than where they thought it would go.

Avoid Easter-egg links, which require the reader to open them before understanding what's going on. Instead, use a short phrase or a few words to describe what the link will refer to once it's opened.

Similarly, make sure that concepts being used as the basis for further discussion have already been defined or linked to a proper article. Explain causes before consequences and make sure your logical sequence is clear and sound, especially to the layperson.

Ensure that redirects and hatnotes that are likely to be useful are in place.

We cannot control all astonishment – the point of an encyclopedia is to learn things, after all. But limiting the surprises our readers find within our articles' text will encourage rather than frustrate our readers.

Use of "refers to"

Shortcuts

Phrases such as refers to, is the name of, describes, or is a term for are sometimes used inappropriately in the first sentence of Wikipedia articles. For the vast majority of articles, the introduction is using a term, rather than mentioning it. This is known as the use–mention distinction.

For example, the article Computer architecture once began with the sentence, "Computer architecture refers to the theory behind the design of a computer." That is not true: Computer architecture is the theory. The words "computer architecture" refer to the theory, but the article is not about the words; it is about the theory. Thus it is better to say, "Computer architecture is the theory behind the design of a computer."

To speak easily of the scope of a hyponym without confusing the term for the thing, one can simply say that "[hyponym] is any of various [hypernym]" or "any of a class of [hypernym] with trait X", such as "A pine is any conifer in the genus Pinus of the family Pinaceae" (not "Pine refers to any tree in the genus Pinus of the family Pinaceae").

Disambiguation pages mention the term, so in such cases it is correct to write "Great Schism may refer to either of two schisms in the history of Christianity: ...". However, a content article should read "There have been two Great Schisms in the history of Christianity".

Check your facts

Shortcut

WP:FACTCHECK

Write material that is true: check your facts. Do not write material that is false. This might require that you verify your alleged facts.

This is a crucial part of citing good sources: even if you think you know something, you have to provide references anyway to prove to the reader that the fact is true. Material that seems to naturally stem from sourced claims might not have been actually claimed. In searching for good references to cite, you might even learn something new.

Be careful about deleting material that may be factual. If you are inclined to delete something from an entry, first consider checking whether it is true. If material is apparently factual, in other words substantiated and cited, be extra careful about deleting. An encyclopedia is a collection of facts. If another editor provided a fact, there was probably a reason for it that should not be overlooked. Therefore, consider each fact provided as potentially precious. Is the context or overall presentation the issue? If the fact does not belong in one particular article, maybe it belongs in another.

Examine entries you have worked on subsequent to revision by others. Have facts been omitted or deleted? It may be the case that you failed to provide sufficient substantiation for the facts, or that the facts you incorporated may need a clearer relationship to the entry. Protect your facts, but also be sure that they are presented meaningfully.

Check your fiction

Shortcut

WP:CYF

The advice about factual articles also applies to articles on fiction subjects. Further considerations apply when writing about fictional topics because they are inherently not real. It is important to keep these articles verifiable and encyclopedic.

If you add fictional information, clearly distinguish fact and fiction. As with normal articles, establish context so that a reader unfamiliar with the subject can get an idea about the article's meaning without having to check several links. Instead of writing:

Trillian is Arthur Dent's girlfriend. She was taken away from Earth by Zaphod when he met her at a party. She meets Dent while travelling with Zaphod.

write:

Trillian is a fictional character from Douglas Adams's radio, book and film series The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy. In the first book, Trillian is introduced to the main character Arthur Dent on a spaceship. In her backstory, she was taken away from Earth when the space alien Zaphod Beeblebrox met her at a party.

Use of fictional tenses

Shortcut

WP:FICTENSE

Works of fiction are generally considered to "come alive" for their audience. They therefore exist in a kind of perpetual present, regardless of when the fictional action is supposed to take place relative to the reader's "now". Thus, generally you should write about fiction using the historical present tense, not the past tense. (See WP:Manual of Style § Verb tense and WP:Manual of Style/Writing about fiction § Contextual presentation.) Examples:

Homer presents, Achilles rages, Andromache laments, Priam pleads.

Holden Caulfield has a certain disdain for what he sees as 'phony'.

Friends is an American sitcom that was aired on NBC.

Conversely, discussion of history is usually written in the past tense and thus "fictional history" may be presented in that way as well.

Chroniclers claimed that Thalestris, queen of the Amazons, seduced Alexander the Great.

Articles about fictional topics should not read like book reports; instead, they should explain the topic's significance to the work. After reading the article, the reader should be able to understand why a character, place, or event was included in the fictional work.

Editors are generally discouraged from adding fictional information from sources that cannot be verified or are limited to a very small number of readers, such as fan fiction and online role-playing games. In the latter case, if you absolutely have to write about the subject, please be especially careful to cite your sources.

If the subject, say a character in a television show, is too limited to be given a full article, then integrate information about that character into a larger article. It is better to write a larger article about the television show or a fictional universe itself than to create all sorts of stubs about its characters that nobody can find.

Stay on topic

Shortcuts

The most readable articles contain no irrelevant (nor only loosely relevant) information. While writing an article, you might find yourself digressing into a side subject. If you are wandering off-topic, consider placing the additional information into a different article, where it will fit more closely with that topic. If you provide a link to the other article, readers who are interested in the side topic have the option of digging into it, but readers who are not interested will not be distracted by it.

Pay attention to spelling

Pay attention to spelling, particularly of new page names. Articles with good spelling and proper grammar can help encourage further contributions of well-formed content. Proper spelling of an article name will also make it easier for other authors to link their articles to your article. Sloppiness begets sloppiness, so always do your best.

Browsers have the native ability to highlight misspelled words in text boxes.
Use free online dictionaries like Ask Oxford, Dictionary.com, Onelook.com, Google Define and a spell checker such as SpellCheck.net, GingerSoftware, or your browser's built-in spell checker. See Wikipedia:Typo Team for tips on how to use these resources.
Articles may also be spell-checked in a word processor before being saved. A free word processor may be obtained from OpenOffice.org or LibreOffice.org.
A "draft" message on certain free email websites, such as Gmail, can also provide spell-check. This might be convenient, especially regarding email websites with which you are already familiar and use often.

Avoid peacock and weasel terms

Avoid peacock terms that show off the subject of the article without containing any real information. Similarly, avoid weasel words that offer an opinion without really backing it up, and which are really used to express a non-neutral point of view.

Examples of peacock terms
an important...	one of the most prestigious...	one of the best...
the most influential...	a significant...	the great...
Examples of weasel words
Some people say...	...is widely regarded as...	..is widely considered...
...has been called...	It is believed that...	It has been suggested/noticed/decided...
Some people believe...	It has been said that...	Some would say...
Legend has it that...	Critics say that...	Many/some have claimed...

Believe in your subject. Let the facts speak for themselves. If your ice hockey player, canton, or species of beetle is worth the reader's time, it will come out through the facts. However, in some cases (for example, history of graphic design) using superlative adjectives (in the "... one of the most important figures in the history of ..." format) in the description may help readers with no previous knowledge about the subject to learn about the importance or generally perceived status of the subject discussed. Note that to use this type of superlative adjective format, the most reputable experts in the relevant field must support the claim.

Avoid blanket terms unless you have verified them. For example, this article states that of the 18 Montgomery Counties in the United States, most are named after Richard Montgomery. This is a blanket statement. It may very well be true, but is it reliable? In this instance, the editor had done the research to verify this. Without the research, the statement should not be made. It is always a good idea to describe the research done and sign it on the article's talk page.

If you wish to, or must refer to an opinion, first make sure someone who holds some standing in that subject gives it. A view on former American President Gerald Ford from Henry Kissinger is more interesting for the reader than one from your teacher from school. Then say who holds the opinion being given, preferably with a source or a quote for it. Compare the following:

Some critics of George W. Bush have said he has low intelligence.

Author Michael Moore in his book Stupid White Men ...and Other Sorry Excuses for the State of the Nation! wrote an open letter to George Bush. In it, he asked, "George, are you able to read and write on an adult level?"

Examples

Sometimes the way around using these terms is to replace the statements with the facts that back them up. Instead of:

The Yankees are one of the greatest baseball teams in history.

Write:

The New York Yankees have won 27 World Series championships—almost three times as many as any other team.

By sticking to concrete and factual information, we can avoid the need to give any opinion at all. Doing so also makes for writing that is much more interesting, for example:

William Peckenridge, eighth Duke of Omnium (1642? – May 8, 1691) is widely considered to be one of the most important men to carry that title.

William Peckenridge, eighth Duke of Omnium (1642? – May 8, 1691) was personal counselor to King James I, general in the Wars of the Roses, a chemist, bandleader, and the director of the secret society known as The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen. He expanded the title of Omnium to include protectorship of Guiana and right of revocation for civil-service appointments in India.

Show, don't tell. The first example simply tells the reader that William Peckenridge was important. The second example shows the reader why he was important.

Exceptions

When repeating established views, it may be easier to simply state: "Before Nicolaus Copernicus, most people thought the sun revolved round the earth", rather than sacrifice clarity with details and sources, particularly if the statement forms only a small part of your article. However, in general, everything should be sourced, whether within the text, with a footnote, or with a general reference.

Make omissions explicit for other editors

Make omissions explicit when creating or editing an article. When writing an article, always aim for completeness. If for some reason you cannot cover a point that should be explained, make that omission explicit. You can do this either by leaving a note on the discussion page or by leaving HTML comments within the text and adding a notice to the bottom about the omissions. This has two purposes: it entices others to contribute, and it alerts non-experts that the article they are reading does not yet give the full story.

That's why Wikipedia is a collaborative encyclopedia—we work together to achieve what we could not achieve individually. Every aspect that you cover means less work for someone else, plus you may cover something that someone else may not think of but which is nevertheless important to the subject. Add {{To do}} to the top of the talk page of articles for which you can establish some goals, priorities or things to do.

Other issues

Honorifics: Do not use honorifics or titles, such as Mr, Ms, Rev, Doctor, Professor, etc. See Wikipedia:Naming conventions (royalty and nobility) and Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Biography
Inappropriate subjects: If you are trying to dress up something that doesn't belong in Wikipedia—your band, your Web site, your company's product—think twice about it. Wikipedia is not an advertising medium or home page service. Wikipedians are pretty clever, and if an article is really just personal gratification or blatant advertising, it's not going to last long—no matter how "important" you say the subject is.
Integrate changes: When you make a change to some text, rather than appending the new text you would like to see included at the bottom of the page, if you feel so motivated, please place and edit your comments so that they flow seamlessly with the present text. Wikipedia articles should not end up being a series of disjointed comments about a subject, but unified, seamless, and ever-expanding expositions of the subject.
Avoiding common mistakes: It is easy to commit a Wikipedia faux pas. That is OK—everybody does it! Nevertheless, here are a few you might try to avoid.
Make a personal copy: Suppose you get into an edit war. Or worse, a revert war. Therefore, you try to stay cool. This is good. Congratulations! However, what would be great is if you could carry on working on the article, even though there is an edit war going on, and even though the version on the top is the evil one favored by the other side in the dispute.; So, make a temporary personal copy as a subpage of your user page. Just start a new page at Special:MyPage/Article name (it can be renamed in the URL address to start a page with a different article name), and copy and paste the wiki-source in there. Then you can carry on improving the article at your own pace! If you like, drop a note on the appropriate talk page to let people know what you are doing.; Some time later, at your leisure, once the fuss has died down, merge your improvements back in to the article proper. Maybe the other person has left Wikipedia, finding it not to their taste. Maybe they have gone on to other projects. Maybe they have changed their mind. Maybe someone else has made similar edits anyway (although they may not be as good as yours, as you have had more time to consider the matter). Alternative versions of pages should be deleted once you are finished with them.

Notes

^ Number of characters may be checked by selecting the View History tab for the page, then Page Statistics from the line near the top headed External Tools. Number of characters is listed on the right under the Prose column.
^ Taken from Policy analysis as of 6 September 2017.
^ For example:
Amalie Emmy Noether [ˈnøːtɐ] (23 March 1882 – 14 April 1935) was a German mathematician known for her groundbreaking contributions to abstract algebra and her contributions to theoretical physics.

This example not only tells the reader that the subject was a mathematician, it also indicates her field of expertise and work she did outside of it. The years of her birth and death provide time context. The reader who goes no further in this article already knows when she lived, what work she did, and why she is notable. (Wikipedia:Manual of Style (biographies) has more on the specific format for biography articles.)
^ For example:
This Manual of Style is a style guide containing ...

not

This style guide, known as the Manual of Style, contains ...
^ For example, in the article "United Kingdom":
The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, commonly known as the United Kingdom, the UK, or Britain, is a sovereign island country located off the northwestern coast of continental Europe.
^ Thus, the article Egg (food) should start like this:
An egg is an ovum produced by ...

Not like this:

An egg (food) is an ovum produced by ...
^ When writing definitional material, remember that Wikipedia is not a dictionary. We do not do one-liner entries here, and the lead section does not contain notes about whether something is a noun, etc. The purpose of an encyclopedic definition is not to just inform the reader of the basic meaning of term, but to explain the import of the subject contextually. If a reader leaves the article after reading only the lead section, they should come away with a deeper sense of the meaning than they would get from a dictionary entry.
^ For example, instead of:
A trusted third party is an entity that facilitates interactions between two parties who both trust the third party.

write:

In cryptography, a trusted third party is an entity that facilitates interactions between two parties who both trust the third party.
^ For example:
Homer Simpson is a fictional character in The Simpsons.

[1] Number of characters may be checked by selecting the View History tab for the page, then Page Statistics from the line near the top headed External Tools. Number of characters is listed on the right under the Prose column.

[2] Taken from Policy analysis as of 6 September 2017.

[3] For example:
Amalie Emmy Noether [ˈnøːtɐ] (23 March 1882 – 14 April 1935) was a German mathematician known for her groundbreaking contributions to abstract algebra and her contributions to theoretical physics.

This example not only tells the reader that the subject was a mathematician, it also indicates her field of expertise and work she did outside of it. The years of her birth and death provide time context. The reader who goes no further in this article already knows when she lived, what work she did, and why she is notable. (Wikipedia:Manual of Style (biographies) has more on the specific format for biography articles.)

[4] For example:
This Manual of Style is a style guide containing ...

not

This style guide, known as the Manual of Style, contains ...

[5] For example, in the article "United Kingdom":
The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, commonly known as the United Kingdom, the UK, or Britain, is a sovereign island country located off the northwestern coast of continental Europe.

[6] Thus, the article Egg (food) should start like this:
An egg is an ovum produced by ...

Not like this:

An egg (food) is an ovum produced by ...

[7] When writing definitional material, remember that Wikipedia is not a dictionary. We do not do one-liner entries here, and the lead section does not contain notes about whether something is a noun, etc. The purpose of an encyclopedic definition is not to just inform the reader of the basic meaning of term, but to explain the import of the subject contextually. If a reader leaves the article after reading only the lead section, they should come away with a deeper sense of the meaning than they would get from a dictionary entry.

[8] For example, instead of:
A trusted third party is an entity that facilitates interactions between two parties who both trust the third party.

write:

In cryptography, a trusted third party is an entity that facilitates interactions between two parties who both trust the third party.

[9] For example:
Homer Simpson is a fictional character in The Simpsons.

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]

[7]

[8]

[9]

@@ Line 1: / Line 1: @@
 {{hidden|Article Development|
 {{hidden|Article Development Stages|{{main|Wikipedia:Article development}}
-[[Wikipedia:Article development]]|bg1=lightblue|ta2=left|bg2=transparent}}
+{{Wikipedia:Article development}}|bg1=lightblue|ta2=left|bg2=transparent}}
 {{hidden|Checklist|{{main|Wikipedia:The perfect article}}
-[[Wikipedia:The perfect article]]|bg1=lightblue|ta2=left|bg2=transparent}}
+{{Wikipedia:The perfect article}}|bg1=lightblue|ta2=left|bg2=transparent}}
 |bg1=lightblue|ta2=left|bg2=transparent}}
@@ Line 25: / Line 25: @@
 {{hidden|General Guidelines|{{main|Wikipedia:Writing better articles}}
-[[Wikipedia:Writing better articles]]|bg1=lightblue|ta2=left|bg2=transparent}}
+{{Wikipedia:Writing better articles}}|bg1=lightblue|ta2=left|bg2=transparent}}
 |bg1=lightblue|ta2=left|bg2=transparent}}

v t e Wikipedia help pages
*Visit the Teahouse* or the Help desk for an interactive Q & A forum. FAQs (?) Reference desks (?) Noticeboards (?) Cheatsheet (?) Directories (?)**
About Wikipedia (?)	Administration Purpose Principles Policies and guidelines What Wikipedia is not Disclaimer (parental advice) Making requests Who writes Wikipedia?
Help for readers (?)	FAQ Books Copyright Glossary Mobile access Navigation Other languages Searching Students Viewing media
Contributing to Wikipedia (?)	Advice for young editors Avoiding common mistakes Etiquette Simplified Manual of Style Simplified rule-set "Ignore all rules" "The rules are principles" Style-tips Tip of the day Your first article (article wizard)
Getting started (?)	Why create an account? Introductions by topic Graphics tutorials Picture tutorial IRC (live chat) tutorial VisualEditor user guide
Dos and don'ts (?)	Accessibility Biographies Biographies (living) Categorization Consensus Discussions Disambiguation Images Leads Links Lists References Tables Titles (of articles)
How-to pages and information pages (?)	Appealing blocks Article deletion Categories Citations/references Referencing for beginners Citation Style 1 Cite errors References and page numbers Convert Diff Editing Minor edit toolbar edit conflict Find sources Files Footnotes Image deletion Infoboxes Linking (link color) Logging in Merging Page name Renaming pages Redirect Passwords Email confirmation Reverting Simple vandalism cleanup Talk pages (archiving simple archiving) User contributions WP search protocol
Coding (?)	Wiki markup Barcharts Calculations Characters Columns Elevation Hidden text HTML Lists Magic words Music symbols Sections Sounds Tables Templates Transclusion URL Visual files
Directories (?)	Abbreviations Contents (Encyclopedia proper) Departments Editor's index Essays FAQs Glossary Guidelines Manual of Style Policies Tasks Tips Tools
Missing Manual Ask for help on your talk page (?)

Revision as of 15:39, 22 March 2009

Stages of an article

Uncreated articles

Stubs

Article stub placement

Talk page stub class

Developing articles

Featured article

How to develop an article

Research

Finding relevant articles

Finding relevant books

Writing

Finishing touches

Peer review

See also

External links

See also

(1) Interest in your topic

(2) Skill at language editing

(3) Willingness and availability

Starting out: removing a single word

A

B

C

D

E

F

Removing a single word: more exercises

A

B

C

D

E

F

Removing one or two words

A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

I

Redundancy renovations (1)

A

B

C

D

E

Redundancy renovations (2)

A

B

C

D

E

Further difficult exercises

A

B

C

D

E

Longer examples

A

B

C

See also

Exercise 1: paragraphing

Exercise 2: sentence length

Exercise 3: smoothly integrating ideas into a sentence

Exercise 4: commas

Suggested solutions

Exercise 1: suggested solution

Structure of the article

Introductory material / Lead

Paragraphs

Headings

Images

Standard appendices