User talk:Deannea

Welcome!

Hello, Deannea, 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
Choosing an article to edit Editing an article • Add images to articles Citing sources on Wikipedia
Additional Resources
You can find answers to many student questions on our Q&A site, ask.wikiedu.org

If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to contact me on my talk page. Shalor (Wiki Ed) (talk) 17:41, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

Cult film

Hi! I saw that you edited the article on cult film and that you added this sentence: "'The Room sprung from the mind of Tommy Wiseau, its mysterious co-producer, screenwriter, director, and star. At first, he wanted it to be a play but decided that a feature film would be more profitable." I removed this for a couple of reasons:

• The first is that this kind of interrupted the flow of the paragraph/section. This sentence is purely about The Room, whereas the section isn't really supposed to focus on any one specific film in-depth unless it's being mentioned in relation to the topic, which is the idea of the "so bad it's good" cult film. Wiseau choosing to make it a film rather than a play isn't really pertinent to the topic per se, as the main thing that they're focusing on is what makes a movie of this type enjoyable and a cult movie, what exactly the term means, and the debate over the term itself.

• The other is that you sourced this with the site Mental Floss. The issue with this site is that they don't always properly verify their information, as they're more interested in getting readers to their pages than really making sure that what they write is accurate. This isn't saying that everything they write is false or that even the information in the source was wrong, but if a site is problematic like that then it shouldn't be used as a source at all since their reliability is sketchy. A better, stronger source for this would be the book that Greg Sestero wrote about the film (a primary source), an article in a respected newspaper like the NYT, or an academic or scholarly source.

I hope that this helps explain things! Shalor (Wiki Ed) (talk) 16:04, 8 May 2019 (UTC)