User talk:WhatamIdoing/Sandbox


 * About encyclopedic tone:

Be boring

 * Use an expository writing style. Encyclopedia articles describe their subjects, report classifications, list facts, and put information in an informative context for the reader.  They do this by using plain and direct language.
 * Just state generally accepted facts (according to mainstream views) without a lot of folderol about the specific source. The information about the source belongs in the citation, not in the article. Don't clutter up your article by blathering on about the credentials for an excellent source.  Do not introduce facts with prefatory statements like, "In 2006, Dr I.M. Portant, president of Snob B. College of Medicine published a paper in the Journal of Peer-Reviewed Scientific Papers."  Your text should not normally duplicate information present in your ref.
 * If a good source is enormously important to the world, then write a Wikipedia article about the source, and link to that article -- preferably in the ref.
 * Do not try to sell your source to the reader by dressing up the source's credentials. The reader already assumes that you are using the best possible sources of information.  (If you're not, then get a better source!)
 * Helping the source become famous, or publicizing people you respect or admire is not a good reason to turn a Wikipedia article into a publicity machine for the source. Inventions and discoveries, for example, are usually presented very plainly:  "The gene for ____ causes jellyfish to glow."  Outside of a history section about the gene's discovery, it's not necessary to name the scientists that identified the gene, their employers, their funders, their managers, or their bottlewashers, because all the important information is already present in your ref.
 * The only good reason to include details about a specific source in the text of the article is to indicate that the information represents a minority view or the personal opinion of a single expert. So you write, "The Flat Earth Society believes the earth is flat", but just use a plain statement for the widely accepted fact, "The earth is more or less round."
 * Avoid persuasive language. Wikipedia's purpose is to collect (the current state of) human knowledge.  We're not trying to convince anyone of anything.  Wikipedia is WP:NOT advertising/promotion/public awareness/anything else.  We're not here to save lives, improve the environment, or change the world.
 * Wikipedia is WP:NOT. Assume that your subject arrived at the article by clicking Special:Randompage and is not trying to solve any real-world problem other than how to write a five-page essay for school.

Simple errors

 * Use a formal, businesslike tone. Do not use slang.  Do not use fanciful analogies.  Do not entertain the reader.
 * Use a dispassionate tone. Encyclopedia articles do not tug on the heart strings.  They are not emotional or prejudiced.  The reader should not be able to guess from the final product whether your personal view of any aspect of the subject is "pro", "anti" or something else.
 * Use an impersonal tone. Do not share anecdotes.  Do not focus on individuals (unless the article is specifically about that individual).  Write about the subject in general: do not write about one person's (or one group's) experience of the subject.
 * Write in the third person. Do not address the reader.  "We" are not telling "you" anything.  The words I, we, and you should almost never appear in an encyclopedia article.

Omit the needless
Show respect for the reader's time and attention by writing concisely. Read WP:WTA.
 * Omit needless words

Present the important facts, plainly and concisely, but omit unnecessary supporting details. For example, very few statements of fact require the inclusion of supporting details like these:
 * Omit trivial details
 * Who said what to whom
 * On what date he or she said it
 * The location of the speaker
 * The official job titles of the participants (or the full names of the participants, if they were acting in their official capacity)
 * The clothing they were wearing at the time
 * The name of the publication or the journalist that first reported it
 * How many people overheard it
 * How many times it was broadcast in which countries
 * What various opinion polls indicated about the comment
 * How the opinion polls were conducted
 * Who paid for the opinion polls
 * How many people responded to each opinion poll

Trivial information should be routinely omitted.

In general, a well-written description of a thing should obviate the need for examples of that thing. Examples, when given, should be thoughtfully chosen and limited to the fewest number possible to convey the important information.
 * Avoid unnecessary examples

Include important information

 * When writing the first sentence, do not assume that the reader knows anything about the subject. State the obvious.  Is this article about a person, a place, a thing, an idea, or an action?
 * Provide the context for the reader. Why is this specific subject important?  Is this subject the biggest, oldest, hottest, driest (etc) in its class?  How does it relate to similar people, places, things or ideas?