User talk:Bibiqueens

Edits on Baseera Khan article
Hi! Welcome to Wikipedia, always grateful for other editors interested in contemporary art. I just wanted to follow up on why I reverted your edits again on the article for Baseera Khan. First off, all information on Wikipedia needs to come from a reliable source. The information you added to the intro did not have a citation, which is foundational to editing on Wikipedia. You can read more about citations here and what makes a source reliable/notable here.

Secondly, the content you added to the article was not written in an encyclopedic style or tone, nor was it understandable for a non-expert. There's much more detailed info here about how to write in the style of Wikipedia and how to write understandably for the widest audience, but when it comes to writing about visual art and artists, it can sometimes be trickier. When writing about an artist's style, methodology, or practice, it's important to understand the distinction between fact and analysis, and to leave detailed analysis for the body of an article. In this case, the first sentence in the second paragraph said, "Khan's work discusses political and poetic circumstances of materials, migration, and desire." That is not really a fact, that is an analysis of Khan's work, clearly informed by your own detailed knowledge of their practice. However, it should be presented as analysis, and cited to a reliable source that has written about Khan's practice through that lens. Later in the paragraph, you added the sentence "Khan asks, what are the fine lines between this dichotomy, how can we cultivate one's sense of self without the influences of policing, or algorithms?" This, again, is analysis that needs a citation, and not written in an encyclopedic tone - it's also generally not correct style to ask a question in prose unless it's a quote. To be honest this kind of reads like an artist's text.

Lastly, I would note that while an artist's own views are obviously central to how we understand their practice, editing on Wikipedia is not the same as transcribing what an artist says about their work. Artists can and do make very broad statements about the meaning of their work and its relevance, but information on Wikipedia (generally) needs to come from sources that aren't the subject.

I wanted to give this feedback because I know it can be frustrating to have your contributions reverted, and I didn't want you to think it wasn't worth re-writing or trying to gather sources. But citing sources is fundamental to editing here, and the style you've written in, while great for an informed art audience, needs some adjustment to fit on Wikipedia.

Thanks for your time! 19h00s (talk) 01:17, 21 June 2024 (UTC)