User talk:McHusky/sandbox

I really like how you outlined what you are doing for the article, and I think the way you are organizing your edits would be very helpful to make the article more readable. I think the bullet points in the current draft don't add a lot of readibility to the article since it kind of takes up space when it could be more condensed. I feel like adding images would make the article easier to filter through since a page with just words doesn't look very appealing to most readers. All of your WP: MOS changes seem very helpful to the overall depth of the article. I think having more variety in your sources would be beneficial, and it would also be helpful to have more references to sources throughout the article. Since the article is in it's beginning stages, I think it would be a good idea to outline all the subjects that would be useful to make the subject easier to understand. The table of contents you plan on putting into the article would definitely be a good addition. All of the current aspects of the article are in good shape, and I look forward to reading a more in-depth article in the future. Quirkybooknerd (talk) 02:43, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

Hi Matt! I'm looking through this after the article was pinned for deletion and this definitely looks like it has been a process for all parties; props to you for sticking through with it! I personally don't see why the edits you were working on on the page had to be outright deleted. The very small one-word edit I made for the exercise in class had the same thing happen to it almost immediately so I understand the feeling a bit I guess! Like Sarah said, I also really like how you broke down the different changes you plan to do the existing "Anxiety (inertia)" page, and it the fact that you broke down what you want to possibly contribute to ASD on Wikipedia in general into a few different options is great from an organizational standpoint; I definitely should have done the same looking back since I was in a similar position with my topic. I personally think that your proposed title change makes sense given the extent that autistic inertia is mentioned in the literature compared to anxiety inertia, and I like how you supported your proposal with the official MOS guidelines for a title change; looks like you're becoming a true Wikipedian!

I overall think what you're doing looks promising. I personally ultimately think the best way to go with this would be to repurpose the anxiety (inertia) page as it seems like you're essentially hitting two birds with one stone that way, cleaning up an old article not up to current WP standards while giving attention to a topic that didn't previously have a dedicated page for its discussion. I've been trying to follow what's been happening in the Talk Page for the article and it mainly looks like they don't want you to restructure it too hastily or and wait for a consensus or something to that effect? I guess I understand that but the fact that you point out that the previous article had no reliable sources and isn't even a notable topic with only a few individual blogs referring to it as a metaphor definitely makes me seem like repurposing this page into Autistic Inertia is the way to go.

I'm once again so sorry that the edits you were working on got tagged for deletion, and I hope everything goes smoothly! The way that you've been cordially and respectfully communicating with the other people involved with this page and surrounding ones despite the frustrating nature of this drama is also really inspiring, great work there! I'm sure this has at the very least been a learning experience for you, albeit a bit jarring I'm sure! Fujeau (talk) 02:51, 9 December 2020 (UTC)