User talk:Renegadeknight3

Here is a link to my actual article sandbox
User:Renegadeknight3/sandbox2

Howdy Tony!
There is no need to be upset NicHT495 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 20:02, 18 February 2019 (UTC)


 * Thank you my child I owe you my life Renegadeknight3 (talk) 18:38, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

Hi
Welcome to Wikipedia! Masonbissada (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 20:04, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

Welcome!
Hello, Renegadeknight3, 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) 19:42, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

Good Article nomination
Hi, I wanted to give you a head's up about the Good Article (GA) nomination process. The process is meant to determine if an article meets the GA criteria, which require that the article be well written, be properly sourced and not contain original research, be broad in its coverage (ie, cover the topic without going off into too much detail), be neutral, and stable. While not overwhelmingly difficult to meet, it does take a lot of work for an article to meet those criteria.

The review process itself is something that can take a long time to occur, as the GA review process is always backlogged. As such, it can be months before a GA review is completed and the expectation is that you will remain and fix anything that the reviewer brings up, even if this is after the class ends. I'm not trying to discourage you by any means, but I do want you to be aware of the time involvement. If you do not think that you can fulfill the time requirement, it may be a good idea to remove the nomination.

I'll respond in a little bit with a quick review of the article and what may stand in the way of it passing. Shalor (Wiki Ed) (talk) 18:50, 8 May 2019 (UTC)


 * OK, here's my overview:


 * The article has issues with neutral prose. It starts out by calling it sensational, which is an issue because a word like this comes with certain connotations. It can mean that the book was amazing, that it was written to provoke emotions (this is usually meant in a not so favorable way), or that it received a lot of public interest.
 * You use the word "arguably" at one point. This comes across as you trying to persuade the reader to see things in a certain light. We can say that critics and scholars have stated that something can arguably be in several genres, but without attribution it comes across like it's original research and that we're saying these things. I can see where you also take somewhat of an argumentative/persuasive essay type stance elsewhere in the article, so this needs to be worked on. One of the easier way to resolve some of this would be to more clearly attribute claims, especially in the analysis section.
 * This really needs more sourcing to help back up claims. The sourcing you have looks to be fine, but having too few sources can come across like the article didn't take as broad a look at the topic as it could and that we're over-relying on too few sources. There does seem to be other coverage out there such as this and possibly this, these and these.


 * There are also some typos in the article, such as missed capitalization and so on. You also want to make sure that you're avoiding grammar like "we" and "you", since we're not supposed to be writing directly to the reader. The reason for this is that Wikipedia isn't meant to be written from the perspective of a single writer or for a specific reader and using these terms can bring these connotations, if that makes sense. This link explains it a bit more, if you're curious.


 * Offhand this needs a lot of work if it's going to pass GA review. It's not a bad article, it's just that GA criteria can be fairly steep. Shalor (Wiki Ed) (talk) 19:03, 8 May 2019 (UTC)


 * Points well taken, I'll look into sourcing that it's arguably in several genres, and I'll read through it again in the interest of neutrality. It's difficult to zero in on sources for this but I'll read through the ones you linked and see what I can add from those. I'm still looking for more sources too. To your first point, I called it sensational because it belongs to the genre of Sensational Literature of the 1860's, I'll source it when I get the chance. That said I believe it should remain because that's what the genre is called. Thank you for the input. Renegadeknight3 (talk)


 * I did re-write the lead, but I've gone back and added the term, clarifying that it is meant to be a genre. Since you do look to be interested in pursuing GA status, let me know what help you need with this. I'll try to do as much as I can. Shalor (Wiki Ed) (talk) 19:15, 8 May 2019 (UTC)
 * I did find this and the book is briefly mentioned here. What you're going to be looking for are sources that can perhaps further expand the article or at least be used as sourcing to back up some of the content that's already in, to show that the points are covered in multiple sources. Shalor (Wiki Ed) (talk) 19:20, 8 May 2019 (UTC)
 * This and this may be usable. Accepted doctorate theses are definitely usable as a source. Shalor (Wiki Ed) (talk) 19:22, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

A page you started (City Crimes) has been reviewed!
Thanks for creating City Crimes.

I have just reviewed the page, as a part of our page curation process and note that:

To reply, leave a comment here and prepend it with. And, don't forget to sign your reply with.

Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.

Sdkb (talk) 07:22, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

Still interested?
Hi! Just making sure that you were still interested in the GA review! Shalor (Wiki Ed) (talk) 14:19, 24 June 2019 (UTC)
 * It hasn't had anyone take it up yet, but I wanted to make sure that you were still interested and available. Shalor (Wiki Ed) (talk) 14:20, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

I am, but things came up that have stopped me from working on much at the moment. Unfortunately I don't have much time or energy right now for research. So, interested, yes, but not very available I'm afraid. I still have the sources you linked me, I do still want to comb through them when I can, but frankly I don't know when that will be. sorry. Renegadeknight3 (talk)
 * That's OK! Do you want me to remove the GA nomination until you have more time? Shalor (Wiki Ed) (talk) 13:31, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

...yeah, I suppose :( when i go back and do the research again using your feedback I'll put the nomination back up