Swazulu
Welcome to The Wikipedia Adventure! edit
- Hi Swazulu! We're so happy you wanted to play to learn, as a friendly and fun way to get into our community and mission. I think these links might be helpful to you as you get started.
-- 03:26, Wednesday, November 30, 2016 (UTC)
| Mission 1 | Mission 2 | Mission 3 | Mission 4 | Mission 5 | Mission 6 | Mission 7 |
| Say Hello to the World | An Invitation to Earth | Small Changes, Big Impact | The Neutral Point of View | The Veil of Verifiability | The Civility Code | Looking Good Together |
AfC notification: Draft:Tales of Hemingway (composition) has a new comment edit
Your submission at Articles for creation: Once Upon a Castle (musical composition) (January 7) edit
- If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Once Upon a Castle (musical composition) and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
- If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk or on the reviewer's talk page.
- You can also use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.
Reference errors on 7 January edit
Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:
- On the Draft:American Gothic (composition) page, your edit caused a cite error (help). (Fix | Ask for help)
Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:19, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
Your submission at Articles for creation: Tales of Hemingway (composition) has been accepted edit
The article has been assessed as Start-Class, which is recorded on the article's talk page. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.
You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. Note that because you are a logged-in user, you can create articles yourself, and don't have to post a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for Creation if you prefer.
- If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk.
- If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider .
Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia!
Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 14:28, 25 January 2017 (UTC)- I had some notes for you as far as the article went:
- Be very, very careful of your tone. Some portions of the article came across as a little fan-like in tone. The reason why this should be avoided is that the article didn't entirely have a WP:NPOV and a reader shouldn't be able to tell whether or not you love or hate something by the way you wrote the article. One of the other reasons to be careful of this is that a non-neutral article can frequently be seen as an attempt at promoting the article topic. It's unfortunate, but most articles written in a positive tone tend to be written by marketing personnel or freelancers that were hired to create the page and as such, they tend to put WP:PUFFERY in the article. This doesn't seem to be what you were going for here, but it's very common for people to assume WP:COI right away because it's so dang common.
- On this line of thought, be careful when pulling quotes from sources. The review from the Nashville Scene wasn't entirely positive, which is what a reader would assume from the quotes you picked. It wasn't a scathing review at all, but you picked some of the most glowing quotes, which can be seen as WP:Cherrypicking by others, especially if they already think that you have a COI.
- Also be careful of what you put down. You accidentally put a Boston Globe link down in place of the Grammaphone one. I fixed it, but just be cautious of this.
- When it comes to sourcing, also be cautious of self-published sources. One of the links, the Classial Lost and Found one, looked to be a SPS and didn't really have any info about their editorial process. Not all sources are considered to be reliable on Wikipedia, even if they're long running. You need to show how they're considered to be an authority within their field, which means that they have to be routinely quoted and used as a source in other reliable sources like major newspapers and academic sources. It's really difficult to show that something is a RS on here.
- I removed some portions of the article that didn't entirely pertain to this specific release. For example, the past Grammy nominations don't really pertain to this release and would be something best left in the main article for the symphony as the concerto doesn't inherit notability from the past awards. (This can also be seen as promotional, as many marketers try to make something seem more notable by bringing up past success.)
- This is part of the last one, but I wanted to post this here. Be very, very careful of original research. In one portion you discuss some of the composer's past works and then say that it is reflected in this concerto. You use a source that does't mention the concerto, which can be seen as slightly misleading since they might assume that it's referring to the concerto in question, at least given the way the sentence is phrased. Now the frustrating bit about this is that it doesn't matter if the statement is correct or not. Given your background, I'd assume that it is, honestly. The main issue is that since it wasn't explicitly written down in a reliable source, we technically can't use it on Wikipedia. This wasn't that bad, but you do need to be careful. I've been dinged on OR more than a few times on things that seemed incredibly obvious, and that's after having been on here for years. Just be careful. If you can find something written by the maestro that says that, you can put it in and you'll be golden.
- In any case, the article was otherwise good and all things considered, I really didn't have to do much. The above list might make it seem like the article was worse than it was, but it really wasn't - I mostly just want to make sure that you understand where I'm coming from with all of that, as it's the type of thing that can trip you up if you're not careful. Especially the COI stuff, since people can really show no mercy if they even somewhat suspect that someone is a paid editor. It can get pretty ugly, unfortunately.
- All of that aside, good job! I think that you really have a good knack for this! Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 14:46, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
Hi there, I'm HasteurBot. I just wanted to let you know that Draft:Once Upon a Castle (musical composition), a page you created, has not been edited in 5 months. The Articles for Creation space is not an indefinite storage location for content that is not appropriate for articlespace.
If your submission is not edited soon, it could be nominated for deletion. If you would like to attempt to save it, you will need to improve it.
You may request Userfication of the content if it meets requirements.
If the deletion has already occured, instructions on how you may be able to retrieve it are available at WP:REFUND/G13.
Thank you for your attention. HasteurBot (talk) 01:31, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
Your submission at Articles for creation: Once Upon a Castle has been accepted edit
You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. If your account is more than four days old and you have made at least 10 edits you can create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for Creation if you prefer.
- If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk.
- If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider .
Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia!
Calliopejen1 (talk) 21:46, 21 February 2018 (UTC)