User talk:Pbjohnson57

Welcome!

Hello, Pbjohnson57, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful: I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using 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 ask your question on this page and then place  before the question. Again, welcome! WikiDan61 ChatMe!ReadMe!! 17:54, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * Tutorial
 * How to edit a page and How to develop articles
 * How to create your first article (using the Article Wizard if you wish)
 * Manual of Style

New material at Sarah Fyge Egerton
I notice that you recently added a great deal of material to the Sarah Fyge Egerton article, including a large "Analysis of selected works" section. This section appears to be your personal analysis of the selected works, and, while you appear to be quite learned in the area, this would constitute original research which is not acceptable for inclusion in Wikipedia. If you can cite the analysis better (i.e. if this analysis has been published in literary critique journals, etc) this would help greatly. If not, the material should be removed. WikiDan61 ChatMe!ReadMe!! 17:54, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

All of the material within the "Analysis of selected works" section has critical precedence which can be found within the works I footnoted and referenced. I understand that no original material is acceptable, so I would like to know what the most effective means of demonstrating that the analysis is in fact not original? Although reference can be made to published material that supports the points within the section, it seems like the points are not controversial--as I have yet to find any contemporary articles presenting contrary arguments. To keep the material on the page, will I have to go through and footnote every point made, or would it be sufficient to put a note at the beginning of the section that suggests all of the arguments are within the the works that are either footnoted or referenced? Pbjohnson57 (talk) 22:57, 8 December 2009 (UTC)Pbjohnson57Pbjohnson57 (talk) 22:57, 8 December 2009 (UTC)


 * The material is not controversial in the sense that there is any great (or even small) swell of opinion to the contrary. However, it is controversial in the sense that, as originally written, it appears to be entirely personal opinion rather than a representation of the consensus opinion of the scholarly community.  Adding references to each of the expressed opinions will do a great deal to dispel that impression.  WikiDan61 ChatMe!ReadMe!! 13:07, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Alright, I will go back through the section and add a substantial number of references to other authors that have already reflected such analysis in their publications, and perhaps remove any items that are not quite explicitly consensus view. --68.190.126.105 (talk) 13:48, 9 December 2009 (UTC)Pbjohnson57--68.190.126.105 (talk) 13:48, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

I went through and added a considerable number of references to establish the validity of the analysis section; also, I deleted a few passages that were only implied within other texts. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pbjohnson57 (talk • contribs)


 * Thank you for addressing that. I have corrected the reference formatting for the new references you have added, and removed the Original Research tag.  WikiDan61 ChatMe!ReadMe!! 16:41, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for working with me through that, especially with the formatting. Pbjohnson57 (talk) 19:54, 9 December 2009 (UTC)Pbjohnson57Pbjohnson57 (talk) 19:54, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Signatures
The proper way to sign your posts is to add four tildes ('~') at the end. You do not need to add the Talkback template. That template is to be used by others to inform you that you have a message on their talk page. Just thought I'd help you out on that. WikiDan61 ChatMe!ReadMe!! 21:15, 9 December 2009 (UTC)