User talk:BasiltheCat2

Welcome!
Hello, BasiltheCat2, 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. If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to contact me on my talk page. Shalor (Wiki Ed) (talk) 21:49, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

Sandbox draft
Hi! I have some notes for you about your draft. I'm going to go section by section since I have quite a few notes for you. Shalor (Wiki Ed) (talk) 15:16, 17 July 2019 (UTC)


 * Background


 * This section needs to be fairly heavily edited and shortened. There are a lot of details that are a bit indiscriminate as far as Wikipedia goes and some of this is written as more of a reflection or opinion/judgment on the book and the history. For example, in one part you note what parts are most accurate - this would be seen as a personal opinion since it's one person judging whether something is accurate or not.
 * This also doesn't really fit in with how background sections are typically set up. What this needs to do is give a very general and relatively brief overview of the background events and how it ties into the book. Keep in mind that there is already an article on the murders, so there is no need to go into a lot of detail since anything but the general overview will be seen as redundant to the article in question.


 * I would remove the historical references section entirely or work some parts of it into a general background section. This would be seen as original research since it will be seen as a list of what one person (the person making the article) felt were important historical references. The reason why a section like this is generally unnecessary is because it's assumed that a novel set in a specific time period would have historical references.


 * Synopsis/characters


 * This section is fine as is the character section. I actually made the character section into its own major section since there was quite a bit of content. The only things to be cautious of here is that you will need to source any major claims in these sections. Since these should be taken directly from the book, it's fine to use the book as a source. The only time you shouldn't use it is when you're theorizing on motivations or feelings that aren't explicitly stated in the book.


 * Movie


 * This is fine as a section.


 * Analysis


 * This section needs to have the analyses attributed to the people making them. This is important because analyses are ultimately unique to the person making them, as the next person could say something completely different.


 * Equally important is to make sure that the analyses and claims are explicitly stated in the source material. If the source doesn't make the claim or doesn't mention the book at all, it should not be listed in this section, even if the claim seems obvious. The reason for this is that while something may seem obvious, we can't guarantee that this is what the author intended as a theme or something that is mentioned as a theme by authorities in reliable sources. This is one of the main ways that Wikipedia differs from other written works, as it's fine and even encouraged to make your own research and conclusions in places like academic and scholarly papers or newspaper articles.


 * The book citations need the page number.


 * Reception


 * This needs to be written in prose rather than a list. Also, avoid things that could be seen as POV phrasing, such as "Despite its high praise" as this implies that there is something wrong with the review or reviewer because they didn't praise the book. It's better to word it like "This Publication was more critical of the book" or even "In contrast, ..." (assuming the review is more wholly negative) since this wording is more neutral.

Overall this is good work so far - it just needs some cleanup to fit Wikipedia's format and writing style. I can definitely help you with this if you like. Shalor (Wiki Ed) (talk) 15:54, 17 July 2019 (UTC)


 * Thank you for all your notes! They were incredibly helpful. I believe I have taken care of them, but let me know if there is anything I missed. Also, feel free to edit it yourself if there is something that in particular does not conform to Wiki guidelines. I went ahead and removed the "Historical References" section. I understand your reasoning. I moved a couple of the points to the Summary

section instead though. Thank you again BasiltheCat2 (talk) 13:15, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
 * It looks a lot better! I moved the genre and publishing subsections to their own individual sections, if you were wondering. Keep up the good work! Shalor (Wiki Ed) (talk) 19:23, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Cover of Leaving Atlanta, a novel by Tayari Jones.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:Cover of Leaving Atlanta, a novel by Tayari Jones.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:56, 28 July 2020 (UTC)