Conradbaer
| This user is a student editor in Boston_University/ASL_Structure_(Spring_2018) . |
Welcome!
editHello, Conradbaer, 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) 14:45, 24 January 2018 (UTC)
Deaf gain
editConradbaer, I responded to your question about a possible "Deaf gain" article, and commented on the Wikipedia concept of Notability at User:Shalor (Wiki Ed)'s talk page, here. (pinging Ncaselli)
P.S. I fondly remember my classes in ASL Structure, Classifiers, and other topics at Vista College in Berkeley in the 1980s, which had pioneering classes in ASL topics by some of the top deaf educators in the country when such classes were still relatively rare. It's great to see classes available all over the country, now. Best of luck in your class! Mathglot (talk) 20:10, 13 March 2018 (UTC)
- Hi Conradbaer, the article needs some work before it can really be moved - not a whole lot, but it needs some tweaks. One of the most major things is sourcing - a lot of the article is either unsourced or undersourced, which is needed to help back up the points as well as to show where this specific topic is notable outside of the more general topic of deaf culture. There are also some concerns with tone - occasionally the writing is a little casual, which doesn't really mesh with Wikipedia's formal tone. Statements like "Let's imagine a world design by Deaf architects. The architecture will be totally different because Deaf architects have a unique perspective on building and designing." are seen as too casual and can actually be seen as original research, as it's not sourced and comes across as your own conclusion as opposed to summarizing what has been stated in a reliable source. You need to be careful of opinion phrasing and terms - the article shouldn't come across as leaning towards one viewpoint over another - even if the viewpoint is one that the average person would share.
- Also, with YouTube videos, be careful. It's common for the uploader to not hold the copyrights for the video, which makes it unusable for Wikipedia's purposes. Now when it comes to listing where something was referenced in a media work, the typical way to do this is by adding an "in the media" section or similar - I've done this for you as an example and added a source that mentions the show.
- I'm also going to repost the comment that Mathglot wrote on my talk page about the draft - granted it was about a prior version, but it's still good advice.
- Conradbaer, before beginning your article, please read up about Wikipedia's notion of Notability.
- In brief, the subject (i.e., "Deaf gain") must be notable enough to deserve an encyclopedia article. If the subject isn't notable, the article may be deleted. The way to establish notability is to check the topic against the general notability guideline, and by assembling multiple, independent, reliable, second-party sources before you start writing anything. Of the twelve sources you list at your sandbox, at first glance I see none of them that qualify; most are either self-published sources or user-generated content (powerpoints), primary sources (everything by Dirksen/Bauman), or YouTube clips (also self-published, see also WP:CITEVIDEO#YouTube videos as references) and cannot be used to establish Notability (although some of them might be usable as references, external links, or in a Further reading section). Also have a look at WP:Identifying reliable sources.
- I see at your sandbox, you have a long article all planned out with multiple subsections. That's fine, going down the road, but I would start with a one- or two-paragraph article with plenty of references (shoot for a dozen, but make sure to get at least five to eight) to establish Notability per the GNG, then ask Shalor or someone at the Tea house to have a look at your draft, and evaluate it for Notability, before going any further.
- Keep in mind that Notability is about the subject of the article (i.e., "Deaf gain") and not about the content of the article. You could write a fifty-page article, with beautiful level two, three, and four section heading and perfect organization, and it might get deleted as non-notable, or you could write a two-sentence article with eight great sources that establish Notability, which gets kept. It's not your article that is (or isn't) notable, it's the subject itself. So, rather than fill out that beautiful, long, outline you have on your sandbox page, instead, go find some great sources and write your two-sentence or one- or two-paragraph article first, and do the expansion later. Here are some links to get you started:
- Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
- What to do if you still can't find enough good sources to establish Notability? Ask for help here, or change to another topic whose subject meets the GNG. Hope this helps, Mathglot (talk) 20:14, 13 March 2018 (UTC)
- The sourcing is what concerns me the most offhand, since the biggest struggle will be to show how it's independently notable outside of the general topic. I found some offhand: [1], [2], [3], [4], [5] [6] (this one is a review, but contains some good information in general), [7], [8].
- I hope that this helps start you off! Shalor (Wiki Ed) (talk) 16:45, 10 May 2018 (UTC)