User talk:Madams51

Welcome!
Hello, Madams51, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:


 * Introduction and Getting started
 * Contributing to Wikipedia
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page and How to develop articles
 * How to create your first article
 * Simplified Manual of Style

You may also want to complete the Wikipedia Adventure, an interactive tour that will help you learn the basics of editing Wikipedia. You can visit the Teahouse to ask questions or seek help.

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes ( ~ ); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Questions, ask me on my talk page, or, and a volunteer should respond shortly. Again, welcome! Dreamy Jazz 🎷 talk to me &#124; my contributions 20:04, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

Welcome!
Hello, Madams51, 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) 17:43, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

Draft
Hi! I saw that your draft is nearing completion. By large it looks pretty good but I noticed that it definitely needs some formatting fixes. I'm going to go through the article to fix this for you. I'm a big fan of editing and creating book articles, so it's something I really enjoy doing.

Offhand I do have some notes for you but I'm going to wait until after I finish formatting to post them. Shalor (Wiki Ed) (talk) 20:27, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Actually a quick note - I do think that a background section is warranted here since there's obvious historical background to the novel. However I don't know that you really need to go into depth about the author. Keep in mind that the background section should really only cover content as it applies to explaining the novel. So for example, there's no need to discuss the author's past and the awards he's won, especially as there's already an article on the author. What I'd cover here would be the very basics of Darktown.
 * I see that there are some parts about what inspired Mullen, however I'd actually recommend putting those into a development section. A section like that is typically on its own, but this could be a subsection within the main background section. I may do a quick mockup on the draft to show you how this can be re-worked. Shalor (Wiki Ed) (talk) 20:31, 16 July 2019 (UTC)


 * I have some other notes - I'm actually finding it easier to just note as I go. The plot section is generally fine but it's also on the long side. It would be good to tighten this up and make it about half or two thirds of its current length.
 * When it comes to sourcing, make sure that you're using sourcing that is about the book when it comes to discussing the book. It's fine to use sourcing that's more generally about Darktown (the area) in the background section, but when it comes to discussing the book you need sourcing that explicitly states the claims in the article. So for example, when it comes to genres you need sourcing that specifically states that it could fall into those other genres, otherwise it's going to be seen as original research.
 * The analysis section is generally about the book's reception. You already have a reception section, so this portion is redundant. A themes section could be fine as long as you have sourcing that specifically states that specific themes are present in the book (ie, a review, the author stating that something is a theme, or a journal article about the book).
 * You also need to make sure that you avoid phrasing that could be seen as persuasive or building an argument for one point or another. This is something that's kind of hard to do sometimes when it comes to reception sections since the natural impulse is to compare and contrast. What I typically do is separate the two areas (positive and negative) and if there is a general, clear consensus (ie, something is a common element of praise) then this can be written as such. I'd review reception sections in articles like this as an example of this.
 * I'll do some more cleanup and editing, then leave some more notes. Shalor (Wiki Ed) (talk) 20:52, 16 July 2019 (UTC)


 * OK, I did the sample re-write of the background section. Offhand I'd recommend striking the genre and analysis sections. The genre section's sources don't back up any of the claims made, so this would be seen as original research and the analysis section is redundant to the reception section. Shalor (Wiki Ed) (talk) 21:18, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm actually going to go ahead and clean this up some and move it live - you've overall done good work here and I think that once I do some formatting and such, it'll make for a very fine article. Shalor (Wiki Ed) (talk) 13:37, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

Live page
Hi! Is your professor specifically typing in Darktown (novel)? If so, this should bring up the page. If they type in Darktown into the search box it should come up with several articles that come up with that name; the book is the second one on the list. It's definitely live. If he goes to Darktown (disambiguation) he should see it listed. Shalor (Wiki Ed) (talk) 20:21, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

Hi Shaylor! I sent your message to our professor, and it is showing up for him now! Thank you so much!

Madams51 (talk) 21:55, 22 July 2019 (UTC)