User talk:Aquarius2018
Welcome!
[edit]Hello, Aquarius2018, 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.
Handouts
|
|---|
Additional Resources
|
|
If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to contact me on my talk page. Shalor (Wiki Ed) (talk) 21:02, 25 June 2018 (UTC)
Use of sandbox
[edit]I see that you have a copy of an article in a sandbox. If your intention is to edit the article there and then copy the content back to the article, then I think you should be aware of some pitfalls in that approach. Firstly, if you make a lot of edits to your sandbox copy and then post it to the article in one edit, other editors will see one large edit, and if they see problems with part of it they may not be willing to put n the large amount of time and effort needed to check every detail of that large edit to separate the good from the bad, and so your whole edit may be reverted, instead of just small parts of it. Secondly, if while you are editing your sandbox version one or more other people edits the article, posting your new version to the article will remove all their edits. Not only will that lead to a loss of their work, but it may also lead to your editing being reverted. For both those reasons it is much better to make a number of small edits directly to the article. Each edit you should check by clicking the "preview" link below the editing area before saving it. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 22:36, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
Notes
[edit]Hi! Here are my notes:
- Avoid euphemisms on Wikipedia per WP:EUPHEMISM - the term "battled" could be seen as one. When it comes to cancer I would describe it along these lines:
- Tucker was diagnosed with bladder cancer in (insert year). It was successfully treated via chemotherapy and surgery and in 2017, Tucker announced that he was cancer free.
- This is a more neutrally written version and more to the point - the problem with euphemisms is that they may not always be understood properly by all people (such as people who speak English as a second language) and some may object to the use of the wording.
- I'm a little leery about the use of the term "competitive" since that could be seen as a POV or subjective term depending on the reader. It's something that, if kept in, should be sourced and attributed. In general, keep a lookout for things that could be seen as marketing WP:BUZZWORDS. Due to marketing and general PR companies coming to Wikipedia to promote people, Wikipedia has become a little gun shy about a lot of terms that could seem innocuous elsewhere. Along with the other tag, I'd like for you to look at WP:PUFFERY. I don't think that you have that issue here - it's just that this is an essay that tends to be frequently referenced on Wikipedia when it comes to marketing terms, so it's something good to be aware of in general.
- It looks like you removed some of the content from the early life and education section, namely this portion:
- After law school, Tucker served for two years as a clerk for Judge J. Leon Holmes in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas. He entered private practice at Quattlebaum, Grooms & Tull in Little Rock, specializing in commercial litigation, while also teaching at the William H. Bowen School of Law as an Adjunct Professor.
- I was curious as to why this was removed since it deals with his work and education. If it's to focus on his political career, keep in mind that the article should be rounded - the non-politician activities are important as well, since it presumably helped shape his thought processes and beliefs. If it's because one of the sources is Ballotpedia, don't worry about that as a source - while it's not my ideal choice for sourcing, it is generally seen as reliable on Wikipedia as a reliable source for basic information on US politicians since it is edited by a set staff (not user submitted like Wikipedia). Definitely make sure that if you remove content that you explain why it was removed, as this is something that is typically questioned.
Other than that, this looks good so far! ReaderofthePack (｡◕‿◕｡) 17:14, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
- Sorry! That's me - I was logged into my main account and forgot to switch! Shalor (Wiki Ed) (talk) 17:14, 6 August 2018 (UTC)