User talk:JustinMorris10/sandbox

draft comments
Hey I'm providing online support for your class at UMD and I have a few comments on your draft: Overall I think this is a good start and I'm looking forward to seeing more. Let me know if you have any questions or comments. Thanks. Adam (Wiki Ed) (talk) 20:32, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Some source suggestions:
 * ISBN 0262515172 appears to cover the subject (though there's no preview online so I can't tell what pages it's on) and discuss their work in detail. This might be worth looking at if you can find it in your library.
 * ISBN 0714835021 also covers the subject (with the same caveat as above).
 * You'll generally want to structure a wikipedia article on a subject like this in a similar fashion to Janise Yntema. A short "lead" section which serves as a summary of the article (and doesn't need a section heading above it), some biographical details, and a bit about their work. I think with a little bit of reorganization you can do that with your draft fairly easily.
 * Remember that wikipedia articles should be neutral in tone and presentation. Statements like "Ulrike Rosenbach is the most renowned international video artist from Germany" or "Ulrike did a lot of incredible things in 1971" are not common to see in wikipedia articles. The former could be used, provided we had a number of good sources noting that they're the most renowned visual artist, but I don't think we have enough sourcing to support making that claim right now. The latter is harder to support even if we can point to things that in our opinion are self-evidently incredible. Your best strategy for a wikipedia article is to show what the subject did rather than give an opinion on them. This is often hard to do, especially for very cool subjects, but it makes for better articles in the end.
 * You may leave the references as you have them now if you like, but I think you'll be better served by creating inline citations pointing to each reference. For example, you can place ""Ulrike Rosenbach." Re.act Feminism. Web.27 Oct. 2014." inside tags and add a list at the bottom of the article and the Wikipedia software will keep track of the numbering for you as you edit the draft.
 * I added a citation for the Dutch Art School - and every subsequent use of that source just needs this tag: after the content to be cited.
 * The content for the first two sentences is a very close paraphrase of the sentences from the source, so I did a little rewording and attributed the statement to the source / school. This particular page does not appear to be copyrighted, but it may be wise to paraphrase to be safe. Usually web pages from organizations are copyrighted, which means content should be reworded so it's not in the same order, voice, words of the author or it's a copyright violation.-- CaroleHenson  ( talk ) 02:49, 8 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Further, for web sources on wikipedia it is important to provide a link to the content if it is available. Your sources do not need to be available on the web, but readers of wikipedia expect to be able to check sources on the web against the claims in the article, so the MLA practice of noting "web" for web available sources isn't the best way to go about it. You can add those with a simple external link inside the references, like this "Ulrike Rosenbach." Re.act Feminism. Web.27 Oct. 2014." or use a citation template, which will let you fill in the values in a pop up. . Both look very similar when rendered but if you view the source used to create them you'll see they're a bit different. I prefer the latter syntax, but it's up to you.

Oh, and I almost forgot. There's an image of the subject already uploaded to Wikimedia Commons. It's used in the german language wikipedia article on her. Adam (Wiki Ed) (talk) 20:36, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

I have uploaded an image of Ulrike Rosenbach User:Alasia50