User talk:Robbiearcher
| This user is a student editor in Georgia_State_University/ENGL_4202_-Atlanta_in_Contemporary_Culture-_(Summer_2019) . |
Welcome!
[edit]Hello, Robbiearcher, 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) 17:43, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
Sandbox notes
[edit]Hi, I have some notes for your draft. I'll leave them in a moment - I'm doing some formatting for the page. One thing that I do want to point out is that places like Goodreads aren't seen as reliable sources because the content is user submitted. This means that any reviews or ratings from the site aren't seen as something that Wikipedia would consider notable enough to put in the article. This is generally the case for any reviews or ratings system that relies on user submissions. I've removed the mention of Goodreads. Shalor (Wiki Ed) (talk) 18:00, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
- Be careful of the IPPY Awards. Per this, the award is considered to be a profiteer award - that is, an award aimed at making money for the prize granting organization rather than being about the person or book winning the award. It's not exactly a vanity award, but it's not exactly something with a stellar reputation. Shalor (Wiki Ed) (talk) 18:26, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
- I'm removing a lot of content in the reception section that was either sourced to a site that couldn't be used as a reliable source (Goodreads) or was sourced with something that didn't actually mention the book. Keep in mind that we can only summarize what has been explicitly stated about the book - we can't take sourcing that doesn't mention the book and use it to establish claims or opinions about the work, as this would be seen as both original research and a subjective claim, as someone could disagree. Even if it seems unlikely that they would disagree, things like this still shouldn't be added to the article. Shalor (Wiki Ed) (talk) 18:51, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
- I'm leery about Kirkus Reviews. There hasn't been any official consensus that the site is unreliable but it has received a lot of criticism and is not really seen as a strong source on Wikipedia. If there were more reviews this wouldn't really be an issue but it's not something that should be relied on to establish notability. Shalor (Wiki Ed) (talk) 18:54, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
- I also removed the mention of the Atlanta magazine in the reception section, as the article isn't a review - it's an interview about the book and there is no content in the piece that can be seen as a review or opinion about the book as far as the interviewer goes. When it comes to anything the author may state, that isn't really seen as a review or something that would be in the reception section. Shalor (Wiki Ed) (talk) 19:01, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
- I went ahead and moved this live - after retooling the reception section and adding the sources inline, the article generally looks good enough to move live. Shalor (Wiki Ed) (talk) 19:30, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
Ways to improve Flight Path (book)
[edit]Hello, Robbiearcher,
Thank you for creating Flight Path (book).
I have tagged the page as having some issues to fix, as a part of our page curation process and note that:
Thank you for your new article on the book "Flight Path." Note that it is currently an "orphan," meaning that no other Wikipedia articles link TO it. This makes the article tough to find for interested readers. For pointers, follow the links in the notice at the top of the page.
The tags can be removed by you or another editor once the issues they mention are addressed. If you have questions, leave a comment here and prepend it with {{Re|Doomsdayer520}}. And, don't forget to sign your reply with ~~~~. For broader editing help, please visit the Teahouse.
Delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.
---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 18:27, 8 October 2019 (UTC)