User talk:Ereed23

Thus far I've spent my time on Wikipedia setting up my user page and creating a subpage for my NMAC 5108 Journal. I've found that Wikipedia's interface is very similar to other website publishing tools I've used, but am looking forward to exploring its vast collection of template options throughout the course of this semester. Ereed23 (talk) 06:37, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Ereed23: Welcome, you're off to a great start! That said, I would avoid the journal approach to your log; this is against Wikipedia policies, and if it comes to the attention of an admin, it might get deleted. I would advise your just sticking to an informal log (posts on various talk pages) for this assignment. Thanks, and welcome again! —Grlucas (talk) 15:56, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Grlucas:Thank you. I'm a little confused. I pulled the information for setting up the journal off our course website. Are we no longer using this method? Ereed23 (talk) 22:29, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Introductions by peers

@Ereed23: Hello! It sounds like you have a very interesting job! This program seems like it will complement your skills well. Looking forward to working with you! Bdokolasa (talk) 21:27, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Bdokolasa: Hi Beth. This program is exactly what I was looking for in a masters program. I spent a lot of time researching various programs before I found this one, and I'm glad I did. I look forward to working with you as well. Ereed23 (talk) 04:49, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Ereed23! I see that you are from Ringgold GA. I have family that live near there, in LaFayette GA. I have even attended the parade for 1890's Day in Ringgold. I look forward to working with you this semester. --LauraT2020 (talk) 19:13, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@LauraT2020: Hi Laura. Yes, I am very familiar with LaFayette. 1890's Day in Ringgold is an event I look forward to going back home for every year. I look forward to working with you this semester as well. Ereed23 (talk) 02:42, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome!

Hello, Ereed23, 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) 16:08, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Helpful links

This section contains a list of resource to reference as I continue to learn about contributing to the Wikipedia community.

General Resources

Wikipedia Policies

Editorial and Content Guidelines

Markup and Metadata

Wikitext

Community Participation

Talk Pages

Ereed23 (talk) 02:05, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Article evaluation: Norris Church Mailer

Evaluation of the Norris Church Mailer article evaluation. Ereed23 (talk) 04:24, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Article contributions: The Faith of Graffiti

Today I started sorting through the sources I have found about Norman Mailer's The Faith of Graffiti, among which are two peer reviews written shortly after its publication. Upon notating the key points of information found in each, I added the first to the article to help build our list of sources and practice the shortened footnote. Ereed23 (talk) 03:22, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Source Notes

After rereading The Faith of Graffiti, I continued looking for sources to help me gain a deeper knowledge of graffiti culture during the 1970s. Thus far I've found six sources that I've begun evaluating.

Beardsley, Monroe (1975, Spring). The Faith of Graffiti. The Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism, 33:373—374.

Gross, Jonathan (2015, Summer). A Born-Again Faith in Graffiti. The Wilson Quarterly, 1. Retrieved from https://search.proquest.com/docview/1892735746?accountid=11824

Hsu, Hua (2010, February). Off the Wall: In the 1970s, graffiti spread through New York and beyond. Bookforum, 16. Retrieved from https://search.proquest.com/docview/2039490432?accountid=11824

Kramer, Ronald (2010, June). Painting with permission: Legal graffiti in New York City. Ethnography, 11:235—253.

Powers, Lynn (1996, Spring). Whatever Happened to the Graffiti Art Movement. Journal of Popular Culture, 29:137—142.

Robins, Corinne (1974, May). The faith of graffiti. The New York Times Book Review. Retrieved from https://search.proquest.com/docview/120043117?accountid-11824

My next steps are to review the contributions my classmates have made to the article so far, and begin outlining the information I will add based on my research. Ereed23 (talk) 03:12, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Article contributions sandbox

After reading The Faith of Graffiti and Beardsley's review of the essay for the second time, I used my sandbox to outline and development my analysis as it pertains to the class article. Once I had thoroughly reviewed my work, I added it to the draft article and made a note in the talk page so my classmates are aware of the changes. My next steps are to read the review by Corinne Robins to expand the section on her reaction to Mailer's essay. Ereed23 (talk) 22:21, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Choosing an article

@Grlucas:I see opportunities for significant improvement to the existing email marketing article. I've outlined some of my suggested additions here. If approved, I'll add this article to my assignments and begin gathering my sources. Thank you. Ereed23 (talk) 03:26, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Ereed23: Sounds fine. Please add it to your WikiEdu dashboard. Thanks. —Grlucas (talk) 12:59, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

After spending several days trying to find reliable, valid sources for my contributions towards the email marketing article, I've decided to change topics. My efforts will now focus on the Battle of Ringgold Gap, for which I've already found several books and peer-reviewed journal articles. You can find the outline of my contributions for this article here. Ereed23 (talk) 13:26, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Bibliography

Email marketing Ereed23 (talk) 13:26, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

WN Addition to FOG

Thanks for your addition in the analysis § on "The White Negro". Can you tell me what's going on here? I've noticed that your edits have done this before with the references section. Eliminating spaces within references makes it very difficult for me to edit them manually (I do not use the visual editor). Also, adding variable tags that aren't used is just not necessary. You changes are not wrong, just unusual, and I just want to understand how you're doing them.

Also, your ¶ on "WN" borders on original research. It's good, but going back to Mailer's previous work rather than finding a secondary source other than Birzin, could be read as original research. Thanks for your efforts. —Grlucas (talk) 11:49, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Grlucas: I apologize. I did not realize my edits were messing up the formatting of previous work. The only way I've found to add additional resources to the Bibliography section has been to edit the template. In doing so, I followed the formatting of the sources before and after it. When I tried adding my references any other way it did not work. If I need to work outside of the visual editor and edit the source code directly, or if there is another way I should be doing this please let me know.

@Ereed23: Look, you're doing a great job, so don't read my comments as criticism. I'm just wondering what happens to the references after your edits (you can see what I mean in the history). Maybe you should try manual edits; I think the visual editor is not very good anyway.

In terms of the "WN" research, thank you for this feedback. I have ordered a couple of the sources Birzin refers to in his dissertation to see if I can pull additional information from them to help add validity to the statements, and will continue to work on refining those contributions. Ereed23 (talk) 13:28, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, see if you can find another source to support these ideas. I'm sure you can. You might check the biographies—we have various in the library. Thanks, and keep up the solid work. —Grlucas (talk) 13:57, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Response

Hi! On my talk page you wrote this:

Are there any specific guidelines or templates for the content that should be included such articles? I tried looking in the project groups the article is assigned to but could not find anything.

With articles like this, there aren't any specific templates per se - I think that the current layout of the article is generally pretty good. Improvements to the article would generally be revising anything that needs to be fixed, like original research (ie, anything that is unsourced, not in the source material, and/or sounds like a personal hypothesis).

I hope this helps! Shalor (Wiki Ed) (talk) 18:45, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Shalor. This does help. I know that some article categories have their own templates for the information they should contain. I just wanted to ensure I abide by any existing templates or content outline expectations before I began making contributions to the article. Thank you again. Ereed23 (talk) 21:16, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comparison to research paper writing

Hi Ereed23, and welcome once again to Wikipedia. I wanted to make sure you understood one of the key concepts of Wikipedia, called "No original research", which Shalor also alluded to here.

In this section above, you stated: "I've realized this process is no different than composing a well-developed research paper."

In many respects, you are right: the concepts of relying on reliable sources, of creating citations to those sources, and where there is a difference of opinion in published sources, of quoting or summarizing them in due proportion to their appearance in sources, while ignoring viewpoints only held by a tiny minority—these are all similar to principles for academic research papers.

There is one important difference, however. Whereas in a well-developed research paper, if you come up with an outstanding synthesis of the existing material for your research paper, bringing forth brilliant new ideas that are quickly taken up by other researchers and cited, that might put you on the fast track for tenure, which would be great in academia, but it is completely forbidden here. Because this is so important, I'm going to quote at length from the Wikipedia policy on No original research:

Wikipedia articles must not contain original research. The phrase "original research" (OR) is used on Wikipedia to refer to material—such as facts, allegations, and ideas—for which no reliable, published sources exist.^[a] This includes any analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to reach or imply a conclusion not stated by the sources. To demonstrate that you are not adding OR, you must be able to cite reliable, published sources that are directly related to the topic of the article, and directly support the material being presented.

I hope you take this to heart, as it is an important aspect of writing for Wikipedia, which is an encyclopedia not an academic journal. Please avoid adding original research to anything you write as a Wikipedia editor.

Other than that, you seem to be well on your way to being a good editor, so once again, welcome! Mathglot (talk) 23:22, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Notes

^ By "exists", the community means that the reliable source must have been published and still exist—somewhere in the world, in any language, whether or not it is reachable online—even if no source is currently named in the article. Articles that currently name zero references of any type may be fully compliant with this policy—so long as there is a reasonable expectation that every bit of material is supported by a published, reliable source.

Hi @Mathglot:. Thank you for your feedback. Those entries were written prior to the clarification of our professor that we cannot keep a formal log/journal on Wikipedia. I have removed the entry and others on the page that suggest original research. Ereed23 (talk) 00:54, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Article contributions: Battle of Ringgold Gap

Most of my research thus far has focused on the background, movements and plans of attack leading up to the battle. Today, I referenced my resources to compile a detailed account of the events that unfolded during the battle. My plan is to work on these contributions in my sandbox prior to moving my work over to the live article. I also want to find citations for some of the information in the existing article from other contributors to ensure validity. Ereed23 (talk) 23:25, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Peer review

Hey @Ereed23:! Thank you for peer reviewing the Telegraph article I'm working on. I did my best in peer evaluating the Battle of Ringgold Cap article for you. I hope you find it even a little bit helpful. Overall, I think you're doing an amazing job with your edits! The link: User:Ereed23/Battle of Ringgold Gap/JenniferMGA Peer Review Looking forward to seeing your continued progress on this article, I'm a big fan of reading about battles so your article is fun for me! One last thing, I don't know if it'll help you but when I'm editing my Telegraph article, I use the New York Times and other major newspaper's Wiki pages as a sort of guideline. Are you using another history article as a reference too by chance? JenniferMGA (talk) 02:22, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi@JenniferMGA: Thank you for your evaluation. I appreciate your feedback and the suggestions you provided on the ways I can continue to improve this article. Yes, I have been referencing the article on the Battle of Gettysburg to guide the sections and formatting of the article I am working on. Ereed23 (talk) 20:23, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hey @Ereed23:, I (finally) did my Peer Review as well. It was a really interesting article with some cool information that was rather well sourced. I also noticed that you did a bunch of infobox linking of the battle to some of the Wiki pages of all the individuals involved in the battle, I think that is pretty cool as well! Dcb1986 (talk) 01:46, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Dcb1986: Thank you for your feedback. I will definitely work on improving the lead section. I did add three images to the article, but you are correct that the others were there prior to my contributions. Ereed23 (talk) 17:20, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Article progress

Hi @Shalor (Wiki Ed): When you have a moment, would you mind looking over my contributions to the Battle of Ringgold Gap to let me know if you see any areas that need further improvement? I've added quite a bit of information to expand upon what was already there, as well as adding a map to the infobox and images found using Wikimedia Commons to support the article. Thank you. Ereed23 (talk) 03:07, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It looks great - my only note is that the Opposing Forces section doesn't seem to have any sources. Shalor (Wiki Ed) (talk) 21:17, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Also, you seem to have a knack for history writing - Wikipedia has a lot of similar articles that need work, if you're interested! Shalor (Wiki Ed) (talk) 21:18, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you @Shalor (Wiki Ed): I appreciate your feedback. I'll go back in and add sources to the Opposing Forces section. Ereed23 (talk) 00:08, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Reflective essay

After my initial evaluation of the Norris Church Mailer article, I began to think more critically about the contributions I and others make to Wikipedia. When it came to choosing my topic for part 2 of NMAC 5108, I initially selected Email marketing because I saw several opportunities for improvement. However, the lack of reliable, scholarly publications on the subject forced me to select another topic. After careful evaluation, I chose to focus my efforts on making substantial contributions to the Battle of Ringgold Gap. After indicating opportunities for improvement of my own, I referenced numerous other articles written about Civil War battles, including the Battle of Gettysburg, Battle of Shiloh, and Chattanooga Campaign. Based on my evaluation of those articles, I expanded my list of sections or items to add to the Battle of Ringgold Gap and began outlining my contributions.

In an effort to enhance the article on the Battle of Ringgold Gap, I focused on expanding the background section, including a new sub-section on the plans and movement to battle. I also added an opposing forces section that outlined the leadership of both the Confederate and Union forces that I saw in many other Civil War battle articles. Similarly, I added a significant amount of detail to the battle portion of the article to walk the reader through the series of events that unfolded during the battle itself. Finally, I added three images to the article along with a map section within the infobox to provide readers with visual representations of its location and the landscape during the time of the battle. In comparison to the earlier version, the information I added gives a more comprehensive summary of the events that unfolded before and during the war, as well as a thorough outline of the key individuals involved.

As part of our collaborative class project in writing the article on The Faith of Graffiti, I focused on enhancing the analysis and reception sections. To do so, I referenced a number of scholarly reviews, journal articles and one dissertation written about the piece in relation to Mailer's larger works. From my research, I was also able to add information to the background section of the article. My final contributions to the FOG article included proofreading and editing contributions by my peers, giving them feedback on their additions, and adding two images found through Wikimedia Commons. This process served as a beneficial introduction to contributing to Wikipedia, and the feedback I received from @Grlucas: and my peers challenged me to think more critically about the content I contribute to the Wikipedia community.

I received to peer reviews on the contributions I made to the Battle of Ringgold Gap, the first from JenniferMGA, and the second from Dcb1986. While I tried to address the majority of the feedback I received from my peers, including editing the lead and continuing to expand my article, I also found some of their recommendations contradictory to what I've seen in reading other articles about historic battles. When it came to reviewing my peers' articles, I tried to provide both Lizrileymga and JenniferMGA constructive feedback on improvements they could make to their articles based on my research into other articles on similar topics.

As I neared completion of my article contributions and moved into the proofreading/editing stage, I reached out to Shalor to ask for his feedback. As our Wikipedia expert, I knew he would be able to point out any flaws or areas of improvement. Upon his suggestion to add citations to the opposing forces section of the article, I made those adjustments and then added links to infoboxes of several other Wikipedia articles that link back to the Battle of Ringgold Gap. These articles include:

Overall, I found this experience of contributing to Wikipedia to be a comprehensive exploration in working in online environments. It allowed me simultaneously experience what it is like to collaborate and communicate with others on a single project, which fostered the use of effective online communication with my peers. It also served as a good exercise in adapting my writing to a pre-determined tone and voice established by Wikipedia guides and other Wikipedia articles. Finally, it gave me the opportunity to learn and practice WikiCode, and expand my knowledge of editing source as opposed to using a visual editor. Overall, I see Wikipedia as a knowledge-based forum that can serve as an incredibly beneficial platform for writers and digital marketers to learn the basics of contributing to work online. By participating in courses such as NMAC 1508 and enhancing existing articles or creating new ones, I believe it will help Wikipedia maintain its premise of being a reliable source of verifiable and neutral content. Ereed23 (talk) 19:18, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to have seen better formatting here, like subheads and italics when needed. I'm glad peer reviews were a beneficial activity for you; I think they are, too. I hope you continue to contribute to Wikipedia. Well done on your article. —Grlucas (talk) 16:13, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Did You Know (DYK)

Hi! I saw that you nominated this article for DYK. It doesn't look like this currently qualifies for DYK since it wasn't expanded to five times its original length - the original length prior to the start was 8,268 bytes, so it would have to be about 46K to qualify. You can try putting this through the Good Article (GA) process with your instructor (@Grlucas: - if she does, could you help monitor the nomination?) but fair warning - it would likely take a while to be reviewed. It can be anywhere from 2 weeks to about 12 months before the nomination gets picked up for review. I'm going to close the nomination for now - a new one can be opened when it passes GA status. Shalor (Wiki Ed) (talk) 16:50, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for this information @Shalor (Wiki Ed):

@Shalor (Wiki Ed): Will do. —Grlucas (talk) 15:36, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

[Exists-1] By "exists", the community means that the reliable source must have been published and still exist—somewhere in the world, in any language, whether or not it is reachable online—even if no source is currently named in the article. Articles that currently name zero references of any type may be fully compliant with this policy—so long as there is a reasonable expectation that every bit of material is supported by a published, reliable source.

[a]