Talk:Rebecca Hawkins (pioneer woman)

Notes by Submitter and Reply by Reviewer
Hello Robert, Thank you for your comments. This is my first Wikipedia article and I hope you can assist me in resolving them so my article can be published. On the first comment about the picture of Rebecca Hawkins. It Is actually in the public domain as confirmed by the Jackson County Historical Society which sent me scan of this portrait. It is more than 160 years old from a family collection of portraits that a descendent donated to the society who confirmed that there are no restrictions on its use. I did read the lengthy rules and talked to the society to make sure this was acceptable. However, I think I mistakenly uploaded the wrong one from my files. Instead of the one I received from the society, this may be the copy I had sent to the society so they could identify Rebecca Hawkins in their collections. I cannot see much difference in them but it was a copy I found in a publication that used the photo with the society identified as the owner. So I think I selected the wrong one as I was uploading it. It may take me a little because I’m still figuring out how to navigate my way around, but I will figure out how to get the original scan from the society loaded instead as quickly as I can.

On the comment about the work being copied from another source. Please let me clarify that the writing is all my own. I have cited my sources but none of it is copied or even paraphrased from the sources. I wrote it all in my own words (It took weeks of consulting multiple sources). This is a project for a history course I am taking toward a master’s in History). I think it appears copied because I did copy it from what I thought was a sandbox where I could submit the draft from. I wrote it all in word and copied into this sandbox and tried to submit it for review from there. I could not get it to work so I created a separate draft and copied all of my work into the new draft and submittted it from there. I believe this may be why it looks like it is not my original work. I was crushed when I originally thought I was going to have to re-type all of my work again and happy when I figured out how to copy it over with all the references and links I had created in the sandbox. I will do it if that is required, but I hope not. Any tips you can give me on how to get my work into a draft page for submission that reflects that it truly is my own work, which it definitely is, more easily I would be extremely grateful. I will figure out to delete the redirect. It’s good to know what was causing this. I was wondering why that was happening and how to fix it! Again thank you for your comments and any advice you can offer that will help me get them resolved. CSTeller (talk) 15:01, 26 October 2020 (UTC)


 * User:CSTeller I will try to respond to your specific points, and then to comment in general on this draft.


 * 1. I did not comment on the picture of Rebecca Hawkins.  Did someone comment on it?  It is clear to me just by looking at it that it is a nineteenth-century picture and so is in the public domain.


 * 2. You refer to the redirect.  Do not worry about the stupid redirect.  It will be taken care of when your draft is accepted.  Your draft is not very close to being ready for acceptance, but you do not need to worry about the stupid redirect.


 * 3. I infer that the major point is that this draft consists of work that you have copied from other papers that you have written.  Okay.  That takes care of the issue of copyright.  It does not take care of the issue of style.  Your draft is not ready to be a Wikipedia article.  You evidently are saying that you think that, with some minor tweaking, it will be ready for Wikipedia.  It needs more rework than minor tweaking.  I can identify two problems quickly, one of which can be solved quickly, and one of which will take work.  The first problem is that it lacks a lede sentence of the form "Rebecca Hawkins was a ... "  But do not just provide a lede sentence and resubmit.  The second problem is that there is far too much background material.  That is the comment by User:Theroadislong.  It needs a very substantial trimming.  But it probably also needs to be rewritten in the style of a Wikipedia article.


 * 4. I suggest that you ask for advice at the Teahouse.  The worst that can happen that way is that you will decide that you don't want their advice.


 * I may comment more in the near future. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:31, 26 October 2020 (UTC)


 * Robert,
 * Thank you so much for your response. This is very helpful. I am going to do some serious work on the style before re-submitting it again to get it to be in Wikipedia Encyclopedic style. Any other comments you have that are helpful are welcome anytime! Also I just saw your comment about the line I deleted. I did not mean to disregard your advice. I misunderstood and thought that was what you expected. It was not intentional. I am still a little overwhelmed with the mechanics of this process. I'm just barely getting the hang of messaging back and forth. But this has been good practice. As I said earlier, for now I will focus on getting the style more appropriate. Thanks again for your help. CSTeller (talk) 19:29, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

Robert McClenon I am going to assume your intent is collegial and seek out other editor's perspectives as you suggest. There is no question I have a lot to learn and could use some assistance from an editor experienced in Wikipedia style. Perhaps I can find one that has a greater appreciation for nineteenth century women’s biographies. It feels like you did not consider that I provided the historical background (all relevant to Rebecca’s time and place) as context to explain why she killed her husband and why she was pardoned. I have often seen extensive historical context provided in other Wikipedia biographies that were highly rated. I am trying hard not to read too much into your responses, but I wanted to let you know that your approach did not make me feel welcome. After seeing the following guidelines from Wikipedia on my talk page, I was expecting polite and welcoming feedback that assumed good faith and avoided personal attacks. However, your first comment did not feel like a warm introduction, but an attack on my character, a false accusation of copyright violations. The next comment included technical jargon about Wikipedia formatting I interpreted as intimidating because of how harshly you responded to me when I made a mistake in trying to follow your suggestion. I hope you will take this in the spirit of collegiality when I give you Wikipedia's guidelines below for you to consider on what not to do to newcomers.

Stuff Moved from Front to Back
(see Please do not bite the newcomers)

Acceptance at AFC
I chose to accept this draft on the simple basis that there is sufficient notability despite the article being wordier than probably necessary. My view is that the community will make the improvements required. Fiddle  Faddle  09:40, 14 March 2021 (UTC)