User talk:Davidk9302
Rome-Evaluating Gladiator Article
REPLYREPLY ALLFORWARD Mark as unread
Kang, David Y. (2017) Sun 2017-04-02 9:39 PM Sent Items; Inbox To: Kang, David Y. (2017);
I chose the "Gladiator" article to evaluate. The question I decided to review was
How is encyclopedic writing different from persuasive writing?
Encyclopedic writing is different from persuasive writing is the difference in intentions. Encyclopedic writing strives to present information in a neutral manner but from reliable sources. This article did well in citing reliable sources as often as they can to support events and characters. Persuasive writing aims to sway the reader to one opinion or another. Arguments are based on carefully selected passages or pieces of evidence that best support the writer's argument. The gladiator article did well in that the information was presented but no opinion or secret agenda was present to either make the viewers adopt a presented perspective.
Davidk9302 (talk) 03:07, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
2 potential other topics 1. Slavery in Ancient Rome 2. Roman Economy
Davidk9302 (talk) 03:07, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
Hello, Davidk9302, welcome to Wikipedia. You've made two contributions to the Gladiator article. With the first, you seem to have copied from your sandbox into the article; but while you successfully copied the material into the article, the inline refs were omitted; the sandbox was evidently not in editing mode when you copied from it. Your second contribution is better, on a technical level. However, what you've added in each case introduces several chunks of repeat information. It's important that any material added to articles is fully integrated into the text as a whole, rather than simply pasted in without due adjustments to existing text, or to the text you've added, or both. Some of what you added was already addressed in the article, and was fully cited to reliable, specialist sources. Readers should not have to read the same substantially accurate information more than once in the same section, nor, for that matter, should such information be repeated in the same article. Encyclopedic writing should be as concise as possible; so please have another go at it. Thanks for reading this. If you've any questions about these matters, I'll be happy to answer them if I can. Best, Haploidavey (talk) 13:26, 9 May 2017 (UTC)