This article was reviewed by member(s) of WikiProject Articles for creation. The project works to allow users to contribute quality articles and media files to the encyclopedia and track their progress as they are developed. To participate, please visit the project page for more information.Articles for creationWikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creationTemplate:WikiProject Articles for creationAfC
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Software, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of software on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SoftwareWikipedia:WikiProject SoftwareTemplate:WikiProject Softwaresoftware
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Animation, a collaborative effort to build an encyclopedic guide to animation on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, help out with the open tasks, or contribute to the discussion.AnimationWikipedia:WikiProject AnimationTemplate:WikiProject AnimationAnimation
@Netherzone: Hey, thanks for making this article seem less promotional. I have a doubt about your removal in the Features section, in which you removed information about the main tool bar because it reads like a guide and being cited to a YouTube source. I would say that citing that video would be acceptable for uncontroversial facts as it is published by the app's YouTube channel (see WP:PRIMARY). Now that you removed it, it seems like the first tool mentioned is the most important one (the ruler), even though it lacks context. Also, that sentence now starts with "Some other features", which makes no sense since the section doesn't mention other tools before that. Maybe the removed sentence could be reworked so it sounds less guidebook-like? ObserveOwl (chit-chat • my doings) 22:14, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi there @ObserveOwl, and thanks for your message. As I was reading thru the article, that sentence jumped out because it sounded exactly like something one would read in a user-manual or instruction booklet; it does not seem to have any encyclopedic value. See WP:NOTHOWTO, which is part of the WP:NOT policy. Re; the YouTube citation, see WP:RSPYT, is indeed a primary source. If used at all it could go in an External links section perhaps. Honestly, the whole article reads promotionally to me, and has the feeling of a UPE creation (not saying that you are responsible for that). The overall tone sounds like an advert rather than an encyclopedia article. Netherzone (talk) 22:32, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, it just seems like the toolbar was an aspect that was worth mentioning in a section about the app's main features. And about the tone... I mean, is there any wording in the article that sounds promotional? Like WP:PEACOCK or WP:WEASEL words? I tried my best not to sound too favourable of it, but the sources only list good things about the app, like the Apple and Google accolades. ObserveOwl (chit-chat • my doings) 22:40, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@ObserveOwl, OK, I've cleaned up everything except the "Community" and "Reception" sections which still read highly promotionally. I hope that you have viewed these changes and that it's helps to illustrate the difference between a promotionally-toned article and an encyclopedically toned article. Did you want to work on those sections? Netherzone (talk) 23:10, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I think I understand better now. I tried to insert roughly what the independent sources said about the app (except mentions of specific teachers or creators using it, which is blatantly trivial), but now it's clear I put too much detail in some aspects. I could try trimming down that section too, like about the age group info and the COVID-19 contest, but it's quite late where I live. Maybe you could give it a go? ObserveOwl (chit-chat • my doings) 23:17, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Netherzone @ObserveOwl Hey y'all, I'm just passing through as I review recent technology pages, and want to say I'm positively cheering for both of you! This is perhaps the best collaborative engagement I've seen on en.wiki since I started getting involved hands-on, and it warms my heart to see the values of the encyclopedia so excellently displayed.
I came to talk because as a reader, I still found it a LITTLE promotional seeming, but I get what ObserveOwl is saying about reliable sources being overly positive- we have to go with the RS narrative, after all. I might give it one more review and see if I can refine anything, but I just wanted to thank you both for being such great sports in this discussion, it resulted in a better article for everybody! Chiselinccc (talk) 06:47, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
