User talk:Andrea353
Welcome to The Wikipedia Adventure!
[edit]
- Hi Andrea353! We're so happy you wanted to play to learn, as a friendly and fun way to get into our community and mission. I think these links might be helpful to you as you get started.
-- 16:05, Tuesday, May 23, 2017 (UTC)
| Mission 1 | Mission 2 | Mission 3 | Mission 4 | Mission 5 | Mission 6 | Mission 7 |
| Say Hello to the World | An Invitation to Earth | Small Changes, Big Impact | The Neutral Point of View | The Veil of Verifiability | The Civility Code | Looking Good Together |
Help me!
[edit] | This help request has been answered. If you need more help, you can , contact the responding user(s) directly on their user talk page, or consider visiting the Teahouse. |
Hi all. I am new to Wikipedia and would like to write an improved article of The Way by Ariana Grande. Is there a place where I can test and write before putting what I want to add on the Wikipedia page. Could an experienced editor also help me with analysing the song's sheet music http://www.musicnotes.com/sheetmusic/mtd.asp?ppn=MN0116259 so I can include info about the chord progression, key changes, time signature and so on. Thanks very much! Andrea353 (talk) 16:15, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
- Welcome to the Teahouse Andrea353 We already have quite a large article on that subject The Way (Ariana Grande song), you can use your own sandbox here User:Andrea353/sandbox to make test edits. Theroadislong (talk) 16:38, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for your help Theroadislong. Andrea353 (talk) 16:40, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
- You shouldn't analyze the sheet music yourself; that would be original research, something Wikipedia explicitly does not allow. You should instead look for reliable published sources that already have performed such an analysis; then you can summarize (in your own words, to avoid copyright issues) what the source reports on that subject and cite the source (see WP:Referencing for beginners on how to easily cite sources) so our readers can verify on their own that the summary is accurate. (Stating that the song is in common time might be gleaned from the sheet music, but beyond that I'd be very cautious of trying to give our own interpretation.) Huon (talk) 18:35, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
- Huon is absolutely right. If a point is controversial, multiple sources can be desirable, but for this sort of thing, a single source will be quite sufficient. Do you need or want help with other aspects of editing, Andrea353? DES (talk) 00:05, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
Hi Huon and DESiegel. Thank you for the advice. I think I'm pretty much set. Just a few things;
- Regarding quoting - is it preferred that we try paraphrase. Is there a guideline for this?
- Referencing say Billboard magazine or NY Times via an online source - do you use "cite magazine" and "cite newspaper" or "cite Web"?
- If I have 10 reviews of a song for example but no summary of the reviews. Am I in the position to summarize by saying it received positive or mixed reviews for example? Or is that WP:OR?
Andrea353 (talk) 06:29, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
- Hello again
- Whether to paraphrase or quote directly is an editorial judgement, and depends on the exact circumstances in the article. Personally, if there is no strong reason to paraphrase, I prefer to quote directly. Each must be attributed and cited: Acording to Joe Blow: Blah Blah Blah.<citation here> or Jane Doe wrote: "This and that."<cite here> Th3e guideline is Wikipedia:Quotations. AS it says, quotations are preferred when dealing with a controversial subject, or when using a well-known or unique phrase or epigram. Quoting makes it clear exactly what was said and by whom.
- Any of the three cite templates you mention will work, and produce very similar output. I would use {{cite news}} for The New York Times, and {{cite magazine}} for the other two, unless you found it in a web version, and do njot have the date and page reference of physical publication, then I would use {{cite web}}. But it doesn't matter much, as long as you provide all the available bibliographic information to let a reader verify the source.
- In a case where there are many reviews you could summarize, but it is much better to directly quote a few of the longer or more prominent reviews: Roger Ebert wrote "This magnificent song" but criticized its "lack of rhythm".<cite here, provided both quotes are from the same review> Jane Parsons wrote of the song's "Lyrical directness" and said "It is without doubt the author's finest effort."<cite here> Do not link words inside the quote, please. If there are both negative and positive reviews, quote some of each, in rough proportion to the numbers you have found or their significance (weighted by the influence or prestige of the critic). If there is an aggregator site such as Rotten Tomatoes that summarizes general critical opinion, you could quote that.
- I hope that is helpful. Feel free to ask again if you are unsure about things. You could ping me, or use {{help me}} or ask again at the Teahouse. DES (talk) 11:58, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
Welcome
[edit]
|
