User talk:Nicolerewis
| This user is a student editor in Valdosta_State_University/Mixture_and_Miscegenation_(Fall_2019) . |
Welcome!
[edit]Hello, Nicolerewis, and welcome to Wikipedia! My name is Shalor and I work with the Wiki Education Foundation; I help support students who are editing as part of a class assignment.
I hope you enjoy editing here. If you haven't already done so, please check out the student training library, which introduces you to editing and Wikipedia's core principles. You may also want to check out the Teahouse, a community of Wikipedia editors dedicated to helping new users. Below are some resources to help you get started editing.
Handouts
|
|---|
Additional Resources
|
|
If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to contact me on my talk page. Shalor (Wiki Ed) (talk) 14:17, 23 August 2019 (UTC)
Notes
[edit]Hi! I have some notes for you:
- Be careful with sourcing. Wikipedia cannot be used as a source, not even to cite itself, as anyone can edit. As such, it'll never meet the necessary requirements for a reliable source.
- Avoid making original research - we can only summarize what has already been explicitly stated in the source material. This means that statements like this are seen as original research:
- This reveals some possible hidden agendas from a few of the characters, along with some underlying suspicions from the townsfolk.
- He does not seem to be respected by the people of the town, proven in the first few paragraphs as small school children pick on him during recess as he makes his way to deliver news for a fellow neighbor. Surprisingly this does not set the tone for the story, things will not get much darker until a hunting trip takes a dangerous turn.
- The first sentence is tricky and greatly depends on how the plot is described. If it is clear that there are hidden agendas then that's not really original research per se - however if whether or not there are any hidden agendas is left up to personal interpretation, it's original research. It wouldn't be as much of an issue in the plot section, but once something is elsewhere in the article it becomes a statement of fact. We can say that X or Y person has interpreted this from the book based on the given source, but we can't post our own interpretations of the book itself. The same thing goes for the other example, however here it's a bit more obvious, as we can't say that something is proven for certain since fiction is often subject to interpretation. Now we can rephrase this to read like this:
- The opening paragraphs of the story depict Boddo as not respected by the townspeople and he is picked on by schoolchildren during recess as he goes to deliver news for a fellow neighbor.
- This changes the setup, as this makes it more obvious that we're summarizing the book rather than interpreting it. Now the second sentence is problematic as it uses the word "surprisingly" and even saying that this doesn't set the tone for the story can be seen as an interpretation, as someone could argue that it does set the tone for the start of the book and helps show where things could get increasingly more dark, as they're so willing to discriminate against Boddo.
- This is sort of a continuation about the last part, but keep in mind that the lead section doesn't have to give a huge synopsis of the story, as 1-2 lines is really all that is needed.
- The synopsis section needs to be tightened up more. I'll do an example rewrite - although if you all like it definitely feel free to use it.
This is all that I have at the moment since the article still has work yet to be added. I hope that the synopsis is useful! Shalor (Wiki Ed) (talk) 23:17, 14 October 2019 (UTC)