User talk:NewYorkActuary/AfC 2018

Draft:SMACK_Stack
Thank you for the feedback on the submission. I've answered the concerns under the original feedback but before the article body -- is that acceptable? The draft was corrected as instructed. Please let me know whether further enhancements are needed, and what's the best way to conduct a dialogue, here or in the draft body or the talk page for the draft. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Setuporg (talk • contribs) 21:46, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Hello, Setup. Thank you for following up on this.  My apologies for the delay in response.  Before responding to your questions, I'll note that you should always sign your postings on other people's Talk pages.  You can do this by typing four tildes (i.e., ~ ) after the message.  There also is a button at the bottom of the edit screen that will do this for you. I think the problem here is a lack of familiarity with the basic elements of writing for Wikipedia.  You say you've "answered the concerns" that I raised, but you've only made them worse.  Right now, all of the links in your draft appear in the text of the draft, and they all take the reader outside of Wikipedia.  This is what we call an "in-article external link" and none of them should appear there.  If a particular link is intended to prove the accuracy of a statement, then that link should be converted into a footnote reference, as explained in WP:REFB.  If a link was intended only to introduce the reader to the website of a person or organization, then that link should be removed (because a Wikipedia article is not intended to serve as a web portal).  Cases that fall in between might appropriately be placed in a separate "External Links" section at the end of the article.  But, to repeat, none of those links should appear in the main text. If you haven't already done so, I encourage you to read WP:Your first article and WP:NSOFTWARE.  I also encourage you to work through our WP:Tutorial and, after doing that, take a look at Microsoft Security Essentials (one of our best-written articles on software) to see how all of these principles and techniques are carried out in practice. Finally, the tone of your submission veers away from "encyclopedic".  At some points, you address the reader in a conversational tone, and this type of writing is not used on Wikipedia. I hope this response has been helpful.  If you have any questions, feel free to ask.  NewYorkActuary (talk) 18:26, 27 January 2018 (UTC)