User talk:ENGL352

Hi, class members. I noticed the edits you made to March (novel). I acknowledge that you were trying to do the right thing; unfortunately, you've made some serious mistakes.

First and foremost, you're not allowed to share an account. This account is used by the members of English 352.502 at Texas A&M University? No, that's not allowed. You're all more than welcome to edit, but each of you must have your own separate account. (If you're wondering why, consider: what would happen if an account-sharer were to begin vandalizing; would we have to block the innocent users along with the guilty, or allow the guilty to continue to spare the innocent? To avoid this quandary, we just don't allow account-sharing, period. I know none of you would ever vandalize, it's just the principle.) I'm within my rights as an administrator to block this account right now, but I'll wait for you to post a response here, saying that you've read this warning and that you understand. On the off chance that this account is only being used by one person, I urge that one person to post a request to have the username changed to something more clearly indicating that only one person has access to it. I apologize for the inconvenience that this will no doubt cause.

Second, the way you cited the content added to the article was completely wrong. "Content for this Commentary was provided by the students of English 352.502 at Texas A&M University" ? No, absolutely not. Sources must be published. Look here: "Geraldine Brooks, a native of Australia brings an outsider’s perspective to the American Civil War. In an NPR interview, she observed (etc)" — that was the perfect time to cite, as a source, the NPR interview. Similarly, when you quoted a passage from the book — "across the seas to some jungle clearing in western Africa, and back into a time beyond the reach of my own past, my own God" (Brooks 155) — you neglected to supply proper bibliographic data. In this particular case, "Brooks 155" is obviously "page 155 of one particular edition of the novel 'March' by Geraldine Brooks", but consider the general case — and consider what happens if someone consults a different edition. (Yes, I acknowledge that many Wikipedia articles don't properly comply with these guidelines; they should, and we're doing our best to fix them.)

Thirdly, much of the content you added was far too subjective. You presented opinions as facts. Statements like "March represents the shadow side of America’s national narrative" or "The book is also a good read" — these are completely unacceptable. You can only present an opinion within a Wikipedia article if you explicitly state whose opinion it is. The book has "beautifully conflicted character portraits"? According to who: the Pulitzer committee, Kirkus Reviews, the book's publishers, or some random TAMU student?

Fourth, bear in mind that not all readers are American. Phrases like "our nation" are strongly inappropriate.

I have, with regret, reverted the additions you (singular or plural) have made to the article. Although the content is salvageable in principle, to salvage it would require consulting the sources you used — and I don't know what those sources are, because (aside from that one quote from the novel itself) you didn't cite them. You are welcome to restore the content if you can do it properly. Thank you. DS (talk) 13:38, 27 September 2014 (UTC)