Vishare Huang

Vishare Huang, you are invited to the Teahouse!

Hi Vishare Huang! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from experienced editors like Lectonar (talk). Visit the Teahouse We hope to see you there! Delivered by HostBot on behalf of the Teahouse hosts 16:05, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

Welcome

Hi! -Reagle (talk) 17:49, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

Welcome!

Hello, Vishare Huang, 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
Choosing an article to edit Editing an article • Add images to articles Citing sources on Wikipedia
Additional Resources
You can find answers to many student questions on our Q&A site, ask.wikiedu.org

If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to contact me on my talk page. Shalor (Wiki Ed) (talk) 14:14, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

Response

Hi! Which page is to be moved live? I saw your sandbox User:Vishare Huang/sandbox, but there's also User:Ntranle/sandbox. My notes will differ somewhat depending on which is to be moved. Here are my notes for each:

Your sandbox

This needs editing for tone, as it's written in a fairly casual tone and as such, doesn't really fit Wikipedia's more formal style. You need to also avoid subjective terms like high-quality or saying that the paper was good at various things, as this can be subjective to the reader and can even come across as Wikipedia promoting the paper (ie, not neutral). Anything that is subjective needs to be attributed to the person making the claim, as we can only summarize what has already been written in the sources. Also be careful when it comes to major claims of accomplishments or importance, as these are things that must absolutely be attributed and sourced. Basically, even if we like and agree with the paper's goals, the article should not be written like it was promoting or advocating for the article topic.

This also needs more sourcing to back up the claims in the article as well as to help establish notability. There are some in the existing article on the paper, so I would definitely recommend incorporating them into any draft that's moved live.

User

Ntranle/sandbox

This needs more sourcing to back up the claims in the article, as it has some of the same issues with the other sandbox. The same thing applies here.

This also has issues with tone, but in a slightly different way. This is more to make sure that it fits Wikipedia's style guidelines. Wording to be careful of are things like "award-winning", as this can be seen as promotional in the way it was written. It's generally good, but just needs some work.

With either draft, I'd recommend looking at articles on newspapers like The New York Times. Shalor (Wiki Ed) (talk) 18:58, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

• Once you've worked on it, the content can be moved by the instructions here. Shalor (Wiki Ed) (talk) 19:01, 29 March 2019 (UTC)