User talk:Naj87/sandbox

Comments from Skomorokh

Firstly Naj, it's great to see you getting stuck right in, you're clearly in tune with the wiki-way. Just some suggestions on your changes thus far:

• The content you added (beginning "The arghul, also known as the yarghoul" is a fine addition to the article, very clear and fitting well with the rest of the section. It's not entirely clear where you took the information from though, so it would be a good idea to add a footnote indicating the source you used (Wikipedia is very keen on citing sources as you go).
• Although it can seem helpful to refer back to previous segments of the article, as you did with "(see Al-Shamaliyya, under Types)", Wikipedia tries to avoid self-references. Unlike academic writing, encyclopedia writing tries not to have an active voice.
• Regarding the addition of the heading "Song Genres", it's good to see you thinking critically about the structure of the article; many articles have been added to in bits and pieces by various editors without thinking about the overall effect, so it's wise to step back and reconsider the overall structure every now and again. One thing to note would be that words are generally not capitalised on Wikipedia unless they are proper names or at the start of sentences/segments, so "Song genres' would be the encouraged form.
• Regarding the information you've proposed to remove (beginning "In Palestine, the most common types of dabke..."), it is difficult to evaluate this decision, as you haven't explained your motivation for it. I would strongly encourage the use of edit summaries so other editors can understand what you are up to (e.g. "removing this as not relevant", "moving to another section", "this information is not supported by the source cited"). Another option would be to leave a note on the discussion page to explain significant alterations. Sometimes, removals that aren't explained get reverted by other editors.

Hope this helps! Regards, Skomorokh 22:45, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Response to Skomorkh

Thanks a lot for your input! In regards to your last point about the information shown as intended to be stricken completely under Types, I only edited it in the actual article, in order for it to make more sense with what I added, which I agree is a better way to go about the edit. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Naj87 (talk • contribs) 00:08, 1 November 2010 (UTC)