User talk:Eparness

Welcome

Hello, Eparness, and welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. If you are stuck, and looking for help, please come to the New contributors' help page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type {{helpme}} and your question on this page, and someone will show up shortly to answer. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

We hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! By the way, you can sign your name on talk and vote pages using four tildes, like this: ~~~~. If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 19:54, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome - er, again...

Hello, Eparness, and welcome to Wikipedia! My name is Yunshui, and I am your Online Ambassador for Prof. Hughes' Theater History course. My job here is to help you to work within Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, to answer any questions that you have about editing here, and to act as your advocate in the (unlikely) event that you find yourself in a dispute with another user. I have a BA in Theatre (not a typo; I'm a Brit!) from years back, so I'm looking forward to working with you guys on this project.

You are welcome to contact me at any time by leaving a message on my Wikipedia talkpage or by emailing me. I will respond to any messages within 24 hours (though I aim to be faster!), but if you need more immediate help, you can ask questions of experienced editors at The Teahouse or get live help via Wikipedia's IRC channel (connect here).

Once again, if you need help with any aspect of Wikipedia, please just ask; it's what I'm here for. Enjoy your course! And thank you for your greeting on my talkpage. Yunshui 雲‍水 20:09, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your sandbox

Hi Eric - just wanted to say that I've had a quick look at your sandbox, and I'm delighted to see how easily you've got the hang of Wikipedia's editing interface. Looks like you shouldn't have any trouble with this assignment. Yunshui 雲‍水 09:01, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

right! Let us know when you have picked yourtopic or if you have any questions about choosing one. DGG ( talk ) 02:12, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Top notch use of the citation template on your sandbox, glad to see you've got to grips with it. I've added a link to your sandbox on your userpage, to make it easier to find. Yunshui 雲‍水 10:23, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Yunshui!Eparness (talk) 12:59, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

	The Editor's Barnstar
	You deserve this barnstar for your excellent work expanding The Indian Princess; that's exactly the sort of good, encyclopedic work we hope for from Education Project students. Really well done! Yunshui 雲‍水 07:21, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Incidentally, I've also nominated the page for a Did you know... slot on Wikipedia's Main page, based on your expansion - so in a few days time, your work will be one of the first things new Wikipedia visitors see! Yunshui 雲‍水 07:23, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Said DYK nomination is waiting on a slight improvement; the references cited need page numbers to complete the citations (I recognise that this may not be the norm in the citation style you're used to). Sorry, I should have picked up on that myself. If you can add page numbers for the information, then mention at the nomination that you've done so, it should be good to go. Yunshui 雲‍水 10:30, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I will get the page numbers in by Friday night (with a larger expansion as well). By the way, what did the reviewer mean by "reference 1 should have a doi"?Eparness (talk) 13:35, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

DOI=Digital object identifier. It's 10.1386/smt.2.2.175/1 for the Studies in Musical Theatre article, so {{cite doi|10.1386/smt.2.2.175/1}} should be the correct reference format. Yunshui 雲‍水 13:41, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(Incidentally, DOI refs sometimes take a while to expand - if you replace the existing citation in the article with the code above, it might not appear correctly for a few minutes) Yunshui 雲‍水 13:44, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Did I do it right? Eparness (talk) 15:10, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You did, but the bot that fixes citations seems to have hit a glitch with the second reference (according to the bot's output it can't find the ref in JSTOR, but the information is clearly there.). I'll fix it by hand, don't worry. Yunshui 雲‍水 07:05, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

Done Yunshui 雲‍水 07:09, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Page numbers added! Eparness (talk) 06:34, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Help us improve the Wikipedia Education Program

Hi Eparness! As a student editor on Wikipedia, you have a lot of valuable experience about what it's like to edit as a part of a classroom assignment. In order to help other students like you enjoy editing while contributing positively to Wikipedia, it's extremely helpful to hear from real student editors about their challenges, successes, and support needs. Please take a few minutes to answer these questions by clicking below. (Note that the responses are posted to a public wiki page.) Thanks!

Delivered on behalf of User:Sage Ross (WMF), 16:47, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for The Indian Princess (play)

On 11 April 2013, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article The Indian Princess (play), which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that James Nelson Barker's play The Indian Princess is largely responsible for the modern version of the Pocahontas story? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/The Indian Princess (play). You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check) and it will be added to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Panyd^{The muffin is not subtle} 08:02, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations - you're the first student in either of my course groups to get their article on Wikipedia's front page! Yunshui 雲‍水 08:05, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Prospective GA?

Having looked over your continued expansion of The Indian Princess (play), I'm wondering whether it could be made into a future Good Article. Good Articles (GAs) showcase Wikipedia's best work - they have to meet a fairly stringent set of criteria and pass an independent review. Whilst the page isn't there yet, it's well on its way to being a prospective candidate for the GA process; I'd recommend that you put it up for Peer review to get some feedback on what would be needed to get it up to GA standard. Totally up to you; it's extremely unlikely to reach GA (and may not even be peer reviewed) before the end of your course, so you won't get any extra credit for it, but if you're planning to carry on with Wikipedia after your assignment (and having seen what you're capable of, I hope that you are) then it might be an interesting project for the future. Yunshui 雲‍水 08:15, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

How cool to be on the front page! Yes, I will be adding more contect in the next couple of weeks, including a detailed scene by scene plot summary, a list of musical numbers, a summary of academic and critical response, and a section on "legacy" that includes a list of works credited as being inspired by Barker's play. Once that done I will definitely put it up for peer review and see if i can get GA status. Exiting stuff. Eparness (talk) 14:29, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, I've put in all the information I have at this point. What do you think?Eparness (talk) 11:28, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've been watching it grow over the past couple of days - hugely impressive work. Without offering a proper peer review (if you haven't seen it already, Tim riley has given you some suggestions here), here's a brief commentary on the sections.

Lead Concise, informative, could perhaps use a bit of expansion (ideally, the lead should summarise all of the information in the article to some extent) but it's a good introduction to the subject and clearly explains what the article is about. The TOC (which you've "forced" with the {{TOC left}} template) should appear after the lead. Rather than left-floating the TOC due to length, you might want to limit its length by excluding lower-level headers using the template {{TOC limit}} ({{TOC limit|2}} is the format you'd use) - it's a stylistic choice, basically it's up to you.
Background Good idea to include this, and good use of the {{See also}} template.
Historical significance I'd be inclined to move this further down the article; it feels like it would make more sense next to the Analysis and criticism section, and could be safely merged with the Legacy section. Lots of "claims"; see WP:CLAIM for why this isn't the best word to use.
Character list A brief description of the major characters (if you can source it) would be preferable to a comprehensive list of every role in the play - doesn't have to be much, what you've done for the Virginians would be fine.
Plot synopsis This is seriously overlong - I'd recommend using only the Acts as subheadings (rather than describing every scene) and summarising them much more succinctly. There's no official guideline for synopsis length for plays on Wikipedia, but for comparison, feature film summaries should be about 500 words, television episodes about 400 and summaries of novels no more than four paragraphs. One, perhaps two paragraphs per Act would be sufficient.
Score and Musical Numbers (should be Score and musical numbers, btw!) Whilst the paragraph on the score is good, I'm not sure that the list of musical numbers does much to improve the reader's understanding of the play; I'd be inclined to just remove the list (in which case the section should just be called Score, of course...)
Performances There are a few slight vaguaries in this section, but that's to be expected given the conflicting information; you've handled the discord between sources pretty well (but be careful with your wording; see the note above regarding the Historical significance section).
Possible London production I'd suggest merging this into the Performances section, rather than giving it a standalone header.
Style and Structure (Style and structure, rather) You've made use of some slightly ambiguous phrasing here, but as far as I can see it's all backed up with sources, so I don't see any problems.
Analysis and Criticism (again, watch the header caps - Analysis and criticism is what should be there) The majority of this is a direct description of what your sources say; as long as you add citations, you don't actually need to specify the source in the text ("Susan Scheckel writes that The Indian Princess is one example of an attempt by artists of the period to define an American national identity" can be rewritten as: "The Indian Princess is one example of an attempt by artists of the period to define an American national identity (citation)," for example). As long as you avoid copying direct quotations from their work, it's perfectly fine to paraphrase their arguments without in-text attribution; a citation is sufficient. Direct attribution is only really useful to the reader if the source is notable enough for their own article, for example: "Roger Ebert says that the film is 'about as enjoyable as a poke in the eye'" is quite acceptable. In this case, though, none of your cited authors have wikilinks (yet!).
Legacy As above, I'd suggest merging this under one header with Historical significance.
Addtional sections: you might also want to add a See also section linking to Po-ca-hon-tas, or The Gentle Savage, Pocahontas (1994 film) and perhaps a few articles that are relevant, but not mentioned in the text. You could, if you wished, also add an External links section leading to the Gutenberg text of the play.

The whole thing is generally well-written and very well-sourced, exactly the sort of article we need on Wikipedia; if you don't get an A for this I'll be very surprised. Really sterling work. Yunshui 雲‍水 12:36, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the thoughts. I'm kind of addicted and made most of the changes you and Tim Riley suggested. I'm going to take a break for a while! Eparness (talk) 16:07, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations!

		The Good Article Barnstar
		Not many editors rack up a Good Article on their first try - you managed it, though. The Indian Princess has been reviewed and is now recognised as some of the best work on Wikipedia. Not bad for someone who's only been editing for a couple of months! Yunshui 雲‍水 09:37, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, cool, thanks! Eparness (talk) 13:28, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Campus ambassador

I have now given you the technical rights as a campus ambassador, and added you at Education Program:CUNY, Brooklyn College/THEA 7212X (Fall 2013). Let me know if you need any further help or advice.--Pharos (talk) 14:11, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Eparness (talk) 05:44, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of File:IndianPrincessProgram1809.jpg

The file File:IndianPrincessProgram1809.jpg has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

unused, low-res, no obvious use

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated files}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the file's talk page.

Please consider addressing the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated files}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and files for discussion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion.

This bot DID NOT nominate any file(s) for deletion; please refer to the page history of each individual file for details. Thanks, FastilyBot (talk) 01:00, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]