User talk:Fallszn

Welcome!

Hello, Fallszn, 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) 20:12, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

Zackary Drucker

Minor revisions needed. You have chosen and interesting filmmaker and have found high-quality sources. When you move your work to mainspace, make sure not to overwrite too much of the existing text on Drucker’s page. Before moving your work to mainspace, I recommend the following revisions:

• Refer to the artist as “Drucker” not “Zackary” throughout.
• Change “Love Life” heading to “Personal Life.” Change “Exhibitions, film festivals, performances” to “Exhibitions and Performances.”
• Add more footnotes to “Early Life” and “Filmography” (and anywhere you are making a claim that is not general knowledge).
• When you write about what Drucker thinks, preface by saying where you are getting this information: “In a 2014 interview, Drucker stated…”
• When you are communicating a scholarly argument (e.g. Nawracaj on Drucker’s performance art and Morse on Drucker’s work in Transparent) make sure to preface it by introducing the scholar. For example, “Media scholar Nicole Morse argues that Drucker’s use of double casting…” or “Performance artist Johnny forever Nawracaj writes that Drucker’s performances elicits…”
• When describing art shows or performances that happened in the past, write about them in the past tense.
• Fix small grammatical errors: “who’s” -> “whose”; What does “2008-13” mean under “Exhibitions”?

Chronophoto (talk) 13:11, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

Notes

Hi, I have some notes for you:

• This needs to be more formally written. Right now it's written in a fairly casual tone, which makes it read as non-neutral. This can also make the article seem unintentionally promotional as well.

• The love life section needs to be titled as 'personal life'. It should also be written to be more matter of fact and should only contain information that is explicitly stated in the source material. There are some other issues, which I'll go into in a more general sense.

• This has some point of view statements, which pose an issue of neutrality and original research. POV statements are subjective, as what is true for one may not be for the next person. Even statements like "The couple published photographs of them together, which became an important public record for transgender life." would be seen as subjective since it's such a major claim. The questions with this are as follows:

1. Who considers this to be an important public record?
2. Is this a widely held opinion?
3. Are there other reliable sources that also state this?

Keep in mind that popular press sources tend to react to things as they're happening and as such, can sometimes make statements that are really only true for the person making the claim. So for instance, the NYT stating that the photographs are an important public record is a claim specific to them and as such should be attributed along the lines of "The couple published photographs of them together, which the New York Times stated was an important public record for transgender life." This puts the emphasis on it being a claim by the NYT instead of an opinion/belief that is held by all people, particularly people who publish in reliable sources.

• Building on the last point, make sure that you avoid original research. We can only summarize what has been explicitly stated in the source material - we cannot add our own interpretations, reflections, or connections. Anything that would be seen as original research (but is actually taken from the source) needs to be clearly attributed. I can't stress how important this is, as otherwise content can be removed.

I hope this all helps! Shalor (Wiki Ed) (talk) 17:13, 24 October 2019 (UTC)