Flynn.namala
| This user is a student editor in UCLA/Radical_Women_in_Latin_American_Art_(Winter) . |
Welcome!
editHello, Flynn.namala, 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) 15:20, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
Draft notes
editHi! I wanted to give you a quick note - when summarizing a person's work, make sure that you avoid making your own examples or adding your own ideas or perspective on the topic material. An example of this would be the word "for example", since this comes across as a personal opinion that this example is notable above others. A better option would be to highlight content or themes that was mentioned in the sourcing.
I really want to emphasize this with the works section - make sure that anything you add here is sourced and attributed. For example, the sentence "Using an archive of over 1,000 X-rays Hasbun connected the bones of those who perished with the violence of her country, creating a space in which the body's ability to capture experience is highlighted." should have a source and be more clearly attributed, such as "For the series Hasburn used an archive of 1,000 x-rays, which she used to connect the bones of those who perished with the violence of her country. She has stated that her intention was to create a space in which the body's ability to capture experience is highlighted." This kind of defuses the potential for it to be seen as original research, as it's attributed and less lyrical, if that makes sense.
I hope this helps! ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 19:58, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
- Hi! The article looks good so far - the notes I have above are still applicable, however. Make sure that you attribute any claims, avoid language that comes across as subjective or coming across as from a single writer, and that you use multiple reliable sources. I'm a little concerned that the sourcing for this is so light, especially as there are large sections in the article that are completely unsourced. Unsourced material can be challenged and removed, so you need more sourcing so that this is less of a concern. This is especially important for major claims, such as the awards and exhibitions, as well as any subjective claims needing attribution. Shalor (Wiki Ed) (talk) 21:43, 21 February 2019 (UTC)