Talk:Small-town Swot

Reagle review

Excellent start. I edited the introduction for concision and made some other suggestions and edits. Please add a citation to the quotes in your paragraph in Origin and collapse the material in Social Response. For example, you could move a bit more of the detail about Zhao Wei up to the origin section. Once addressed, please proceed with moving your content to the mainspace. -Reagle (talk) 14:49, 24 October 2022 (UTC)

@ReagleI made some changes mainly in the citations and the “Origin” section. After reviewing other articles such as “Tangping”, I feel I can refine my article by adding more sources in the “context” and “social response” parts. It’s a pity that alhtough the social response is intense in China, the sources are all in Chinese… ～～～ Senceia (talk) 05:26, 28 November 2022 (UTC) Senceia (talk) 03:20, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

Move to draft?

Hello Onel5969, could you speak to why you moved this to Draft space without specific comment or feedback? -Reagle (talk) 17:27, 8 November 2022 (UTC)

If you had bothered to read the talk page of the article's creator, you might understand. You might want to rethink moving it back into mainspace, as WP:OR is really frowned upon. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 19:34, 8 November 2022 (UTC)

@Onel5969, sorry, I didn't think to look at the user's talk page. In any case, I know things aren't supposed to be toggled back and forth from Draft space, but I'm going to follow your suggestion and do so now that @Senceia has feedback to work with. -Reagle (talk) 20:44, 8 November 2022 (UTC)

No worries. When something gets sent to draft, there is usually (except in rare cases) a message left on the talk page of the editor who created the article. And since you are reverting your own move from Draftspace, that should not be an issue. Question, did you understand my points to the editor? Onel5969 ^{TT me} 21:22, 8 November 2022 (UTC)

Regarding the response, should I make a major change in my draft and significantly cut the social response part? I feel that part is what makes people feel this is original research. @Onel5969～～～～ Senceia (talk) 20:04, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

What you want in an article is neutrality, and objectivity. You should never insert your own commentary, or make conjectures or judgements. You should also never include information which isn't in the sources. In other words, don't expand upon what the sources say. Simply take what the sources say, and put it in your own words. Hopefully that makes sense. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 20:32, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

@Onel5969I found the main issue was the sourcing part. I added citations for all the parts that I paraphrased and found more original sources in the “Origin” section. Source [1] and [2] are in English, but sorry that the Douban articles are in Chinese. ～～～ Senceia (talk) 05:26, 28 November 2022 (UTC Senceia (talk) 03:20, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

It's much better. There are still some items which need sourcing. Also, the paragraph on the WeChat needs independent sourcing, WeChat is not a reliable source. Hope this helps. But you've definitely shown it's notable. Also, don't worry about cites being in English, that makes it easier, of course, but is not a requirement. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 11:03, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

Good progress! Please note that your citation to "http://maleskine-production:30000/p/3a1be86aab8d" doesn't work because it is not a valid URL. What was the actual link? @Onel5969, more than a source, The WeChat article's importance is that it kicked off the coverage. It's a little bit "original research-ish" to claim this was the first prominent article -- and perhaps we could find another source saying the same -- but I don't think it's a stretch to include that in any case. -~~ Reagle (talk) 17:16, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

I wasn't saying not to include it, just that it's not a reliable source and needs independent sourcing. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 17:21, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

Thank you so much for your kind review of my article. Sorry that as a WikiInfant, I didn’t know Wikipedia has such strict requirements for citations. Currently, the only two sentences without citations are the opening sentences in the social response section. Please let me know if I should delete them. Please also let me know if you need translation for any of the Chinese sources. Regarding the source from WeChat, this could be a misunderstanding because WeChat is also a social media platform for self-media. The article was also published on other media platforms, and I sourced it from Baidu. Thank you again and please let me know if there are other issues.@Onel5969～～～ Senceia (talk) 18:31, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

Well, the social response section issue seems to be resolved. Regarding the WeChat issue, the source you use, Baidu, does not appear to mention it. That could be a machine translation issue, but I read the article, and don't see a connection. Other than that, very nice job. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 23:08, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

I really appreciate the effort, thank you so much! The term "small-twon swot (小镇做题家)" is mentioned in the first two paragraphs of the article. I tried with Google translate and it translated the term into "small town as a problem solver" or "problem writer in a small town" from the article. Since the term is so context-based, it is very difficult for Google translate to accurately translate it. Also, the whole story of the Zhao Wei explains the situation of a typical small-town swot.@Onel5969～～～ Senceia (talk) 01:26, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification! -Reagle (talk) 20:43, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

onel5969 Would you object this moving back to mainspace at this point? Reagle (talk) 21:32, 3 December 2022 (UTC)