User talk:Mcompo
| This user is a student editor in George_Washington_University/AmWriting_Fall_2018_M_11_(Fall_2018) . |
Welcome!
[edit]Hello, Mcompo, 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) 17:21, 29 November 2018 (UTC)
Notes
[edit]Hi! Here are my notes for the draft:
- This needs more sourcing to back up claims, as some of the sections are undersourced or completely unsourced. Since Banksy is such a private figure - and some debate whether they're a single person or the work of several someones, sourcing is very, very important. Any and everything that could be considered a defining characteristic or part of their history should be sourced with a very reliable source.
- I would avoid putting quotes in the article unless they're extremely vital to the understanding of the article and cannot be rephrased. The reason for this is that Wikipedia has a site for quotes (Wikiquote), as too many quotes would end up detracting from the article rather than adding to it.
- Avoid statements that come across as a personal opinion or viewpoint. For example, the statement that Banksy "transformed the art scene" would be seen as an opinion that's subjective to the reader, as some would see it as transformative while others would argue that it wasn't. The same goes for the word 'unique', since that's kind of a loaded word. It carries with it various ideas of how the word is used and means, so with something like that it's better to attribute it along the lines of "thus creating what some critics have described as a new and unique piece". If it's Banksy stating this, you can list his name instead. However that said, this piece is already covered in the article at Banksy#Balloon_Girl_Shredding pretty thoroughly, so this portion of the draft may be seen as redundant depending on where and how you mention it.
- The same concerns exist for the section on legacy and influence. Anything that could be seen as an opinion or subjective statement must be attributed to the source/person making the claim. For example, the following statements would be seen as subjective and need attribution along the lines of "According to..." or what I've written above:
- His mysterious persona attracts the respect and interest of millions around the globe. (this is a little too casual and could be seen as being written with a pro-Banksy slant
- Banksy's artistic innovation (per the criticism section, not everyone views their work as innovative - some see it as just vandalism)
- His work in turn, has questioned the authenticity of art and its creators, furthering the cultural debate that has existed for centuries. (This seems to be more of a reflection on his work, so it needs attribution.)
- This content is already summarized in other sections, so it would be seen as redundant.
I'm a little concerned that much of this content is already covered elsewhere in the article, so it would be seen as redundant and possibly subjective to the reader. If you want to create a new section that summarizes the separate sections, it would be a very good idea to suggest this section on the article's talk page. Also, the heading for the legacy and influence section also seems like it should cover who is believed to have influenced Banksy, who they've influenced, and if anything like an award, building, book, or other similar item has been named after him. Shalor (Wiki Ed) (talk) 17:41, 29 November 2018 (UTC)