User talk:Wldbaker

Hello, Wldbaker, and welcome to Wikipedia! I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, please see our help pages, and if you can't find what you are looking for there, please feel free to ask me on my talk page or place {{Help me}} on this page and someone will drop by to help. Red Director (talk) 05:04, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Draft notes

Hi! I didn't know exactly where to leave notes, so I figured that your page would be the easiest location given the size of the class.

My first note is that this doesn't follow the general layout and format of how book articles are written on Wikipedia. This brochure goes over the layout of a book article on Wikipedia, which should be helpful.

Most book articles generally do not have an about the author section, as the article should really only be about the book. The reason for this is that in most cases the author's information is not seen as pertinent to the book and would be too much detail. It can also sometimes be seen as promotional depending on how the content is written, although in most cases the issue is too much detail. A better option would be to create a development/background section that covers the creation and publication of the book. Now I will say that there are situations where an author's background directly ties into a book, such as in the case of Harper Lee and To Kill a Mockingbird, where her upbringing greatly influenced the novel and its development. If this is the case here then it needs to be made a bit more clear (make sure that this is all cited with reliable sources that explicitly state this, though), otherwise this is really all that needs to be in the background/development section:

Barnes developed this book project when she met multiple Black middle-class moms at a story-time session in Atlanta, Georgia. It was the middle of the day and she wondered why so many of these moms were able to care for their young ones during the workday.

Other than that, the content about it being her first book can be mentioned in the lead, although if there's coverage that discusses the processes she went through in putting out her first book (ie, any difficulties she faced writing or publishing it) then that can be mentioned. The awards should be in a section (on its own) or in a subsection (under reception).

The chapter summaries need to be shortened and combined into a general overview about the book - chapter summaries are seen as too overly detailed as far as Wikipedia goes. It should be more like this. It's very important to make sure that this is written as neutrally as possible in order to avoid it coming across like an interpretation of the work in question.

There shouldn't be a key terms section - this is something that would be seen as original research and also come across as a research guide. Now that said, we can have a "see also" section if the terms have Wikipedia articles. Otherwise if the terms are very important they should be discussed in the synopsis.

The sources in the reception section are good. It needs to be worked into more of a prose format so that it flows a little easier, but that's something that can be worked on last. One note though - you don't need to list where the reviewers work. Their names and where the review is posted is generally enough, although their career can be mentioned, along the lines of how you have "cultural anthropologist Anthony Kwame Harrison". The reason for this is that this content is seen as incidental to the review and isn't necessary since their qualifications and reliability is established via the journal/publications.

I hope that this all helps! Shalor (Wiki Ed) (talk) 18:37, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Raising the Race (December 31)

Your recent article submission has been rejected. If you have further questions, you can ask at the Articles for creation help desk or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help. The reason left by DGG was: This submission is contrary to the purpose of Wikipedia. The comment the reviewer left was: WP publishes articles about notable books, not extended book summaries

DGG ( talk ) 07:28, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Wldbaker! Having an article declined at Articles for Creation can be disappointing. If you are wondering why your article submission was declined, please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! DGG ( talk ) 07:28, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Raising the Race (January 17)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by CatcherStorm was:

This submission's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article—that is, they do not show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject. Before any resubmission, additional references meeting these criteria should be added (see technical help and learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue). If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia.

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.

If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Raising the Race and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you now believe the draft cannot meet Wikipedia's standards or do not wish to progress it further, you may request deletion. Please go to Draft:Raising the Race, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "{{db-self}}" at the top of the draft text and click the blue "publish changes" button to save this edit.
If you do not make any further changes to your draft, in 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

CatcherStorm ^talk 10:26, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Raising the Race has been accepted

Raising the Race, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.

The article has been assessed as Start-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. Most new articles start out as Stub-Class or Start-Class and then attain higher grades as they develop over time. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for Creation if you prefer.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk.

If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider leaving us some feedback.

Thanks again, and happy editing!

Atlantic306 (talk) 01:56, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]