User talk:ChloeGui

Welcome!
Hello, ChloeGui, 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) 14:05, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

Uploading images
Hi! With the images, are you uploading them via Commons or Wikipedia? Also, what type of custom images are they? If you altered a copyrighted image then it may not be able to be uploaded. Can you email me with more information about this at stoncray@undefinedwikiedu.org? Shalor (Wiki Ed) (talk) 17:09, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

I'm trying to upload to my sandbox, I don't understand any of these pages at all or what a Commons is. The images themselves are for the Rhetorical Stance page, and are custom images of the rhetorical triangle and tetrahedron. We want to put them on there to help the page be more easily understandable. ChloeGui (talk) 17:08, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

I have now uploaded both images to the Commons, but I still cannot figure out how to put them on my sandbox. ChloeGui (talk) 17:27, 27 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Sorry I didn't see this until now - I'm not sure why I didn't see your response on my watchlist. I'm glad you got the images to show up on your sandbox! Shalor (Wiki Ed) (talk) 18:32, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

Adam Lawson's Peer Review
I do not think there is a reason for the notification "*images will be at top of page*". You could point that out in the portion of the article that talks about the images. The notification just makes the article look messy. The lead section is well wrote and sourced, I feel like I know what I'm am going to learn before i read it. In the purpose section I was a little confused when I was reading about the examples. More explanation about their meaning could help to lessen the possible confusion about what the scholars thought about purpose. In Author/Speaker you use a quote from Wayne Booth. We aren't suppose to use direct quotes and there is no citation for the whole section. In context you use a quote and the section is fairly short, could use some more information. The rhetorical triangle and tetrahedral is great, the pictures should be with the section if possible. Audience and academic communities are well written. In non academic communities, the different communities could be explained more or given examples. It would give a better example and create more material.

To have balanced coverage Context and Non Academic Communities need more material. The content is neutral throughout the article, it never feel biased. I couldn't find a couple of the sources to review them. The ones that I could get to were reliable. To improve the article the author should include more information in Context and Non academic communities. In the Contents the first point should be removed. The message should be included in the corresponding section.What the article does good is that its lead section is a great representation of the article.

Adamlawson13 (talk) 17:26, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback! The message about the images is so that the reviewers know that is where they will be in the actual article, and is not a part of it. When we put the images in, we couldn't get them to be wherever we needed them, and wanted to clear that up is all. Again, thanks! ChloeGui (talk) 03:44, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Hi ChloeGui! Images are typically displayed at either the left or right hand portion of the screen. They typically don't stand side by side and as such they usually "stack" on top of one another. I've done some tweaking to the draft by removing the headings over the lead (which shouldn't have a heading) - let me know if that improves things for you.
 * One thing I really, really need to emphasize is that you need to source the quotes and claims in the article that are currently unsourced - these parts should always have citations. This would be things like anything in quotation marks as well as major claims or assertions like "some say" or "many believe". Offhand this looks good - just make sure that you source everything to show what source you're summarizing from. Shalor (Wiki Ed) (talk) 13:38, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

October 2018
Welcome to Wikipedia, and thank you for your contributions. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, please note that there is a Manual of Style that should be followed to maintain a consistent, encyclopedic appearance. Deviating from this style, as you did in Rhetorical stance, disturbs uniformity among articles and may cause readability or accessibility problems. Please take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Donner60 (talk) 03:20, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

Your contributed article, Rhetorical Stance


Hello, I noticed that you recently created a new page, Rhetorical Stance. First, thank you for your contribution; Wikipedia relies solely on the efforts of volunteers such as you. Unfortunately, the page you created covers a topic on which we already have a page – Rhetorical stance. Because of the duplication, your article has been tagged for speedy deletion. Please note that this is not a comment on you personally and we hope you will continue helping to improve Wikipedia. If the topic of the article you created is one that interests you, then perhaps you would like to help out at Rhetorical stance. If you have new information to add, you might want to discuss it at the article's talk page.

If you think the article you created should remain separate, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. Additionally if you would like to have someone review articles you create before they go live so they are not nominated for deletion shortly after you post them, allow me to suggest the article creation process and using our search feature to find related information we already have in the encyclopedia. Try not to be discouraged. Wikipedia looks forward to your future contributions. signed,Rosguill talk 17:54, 23 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Hi! I saw that this was deleted and that you've merged content into the existing article, however please be careful about this in the future! --Shalor (Wiki Ed) (talk) 13:42, 24 October 2018 (UTC)