User talk:Desireemaxine94

Welcome!
Hello, Desireemaxine94, 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) 18:38, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

Notes on draft
Hi! I wanted to give you some notes on your draft:


 * There is a lot of original research and persuasive writing in your draft. The problem with this is that the article should only contain information that has already been stated in existing sourcing that is specifically about the manifesto. For example, we cannot take sourcing that isn't about the manifesto and then use it to back up a claim, as this would be considered something that we came up with on our own. It doesn't mean that the claims or research are wrong, just that it's not something that should be in a Wikipedia article. Essentially we can only summarize what has already been written about the manifesto as opposed to creating new observations or conclusions on our own. Any claims that aren't explicitly made in the source material cannot be included.
 * For example, we can't even state that the manifesto is even feminist unless Adichie or an authoritative source states that it is - we're that limited on here. Your writing is well done and the sourcing would actually be considered excellent outside of Wikipedia, it's just that Wikipedia is fairly strict on original research and sourcing.


 * With persuasive writing, that basically means that when writing about the manifesto, you need to make sure that you're presenting the existent coverage and information in as neutral a light as possible and that you aren't trying to argue a specific viewpoint or opinion. This can often go along with original research, to be honest. Make sure that you aren't gilding the lily, so to speak. For example, someone familiar with Adichie would already know of her impressive achievements or could find out about them via her website, so calling her award winning in an article for the manifesto can come across as a little like promotional speak, like you're trying to sell the reader on Adichie's awesomeness and qualifications. It can be easy to miss these, though.


 * Use quotes sparingly, as the bulk of the work should be in your own words. Only use the quotes when you can't summarize things in your own words and the quote is exceptionally important, such as being highlighted in a secondary source.

Other than that, I'm concerned that there's really only one source in the article that covers the manifesto and isn't written by Adichie, the Bustle video. What the article needs for sourcing are things like news articles like this piece by the Guardian or the one by the New York Times, as well as things like the book being on NPR's best books of 2017 list. Academic sourcing would be better, but it may be too new to really have a lot of coverage in the academic sphere just yet, aside from maybe some reviews. I think that it's notable, it's just that it needs more independent sourcing that is about the book.

I hope that this helps and isn't too overwhelming! I think that you may be able to find some of the information in the article in some of the sourcing out there but I do think that this needs a re-write. Shalor (Wiki Ed) (talk) 19:39, 4 April 2018 (UTC)