Administrators, upwizcampeditors
0
edits
Chalo Chatu:Writing better articles: Difference between revisions
From Chalo Chatu, Zambia online encyclopedia
Chalo Chatu:Writing better articles (view source)
Revision as of 09:35, 8 January 2018
, 8 January 2018→Inverted pyramid (news style)
| Line 57: | Line 57: | ||
===Inverted pyramid (news style)=== | ===Inverted pyramid (news style)=== | ||
Some Chalo Chatu users prefer using the inverted pyramid structure of news style. This information presentation technique is that found in short, direct, front-page newspaper stories and the news bulletins that air on radio and television. This is a style only used within an article, not across a category of them. | |||
The main feature of the inverted pyramid is placement of important information first, with a decreasing importance as the article advances. Originally developed so that the editors could cut from the bottom to fit an item into the available layout space, this style encourages brevity and prioritizes information, because many people expect to find important material early, and less important information later, where interest decreases. | |||
Encyclopedia articles are not required to be in inverted pyramid order, and often aren't, especially when complex. However, a familiarity with this convention may help in planning the style and layout of an article for which this approach is a good fit. Inverted-pyramid style is most often used with articles in which a chronological, geographical, or other order will not be helpful. Common examples are short-term events, concise biographies of persons notable for only one thing, and other articles where there are not likely to be many logical subtopics, but a number of facts to prioritize for the reader. | |||
The lead section common to all Wikipedia articles is, in essence, a limited application of the inverted pyramid approach. Virtually all stub articles should be created in inverted-pyramid style, since they basically consist of just a lead section. Consequently, many articles begin as inverted-pyramid pieces and change to summary style later as the topic develops, often combining the approaches by retaining a general inverted pyramid structure, but dividing the background material subtopically, with summary pointers to other articles. | |||
'''[[WP:NOTHOWTO|Wikipedia is not a manual, guidebook, textbook, or scientific journal]]'''. Articles, and other encyclopedic content, should be written in a formal [[Tone (literature)|tone]]. Standards for formal tone vary a bit depending upon the subject matter, but should usually match the style used in [[Wikipedia:Featured articles|Featured]]- and [[Wikipedia:Good articles|Good]]-class articles in the same category. Encyclopedic writing has a fairly academic approach, while remaining clear and understandable. Formal tone means that the article should not be written using [[:Wiktionary:argot|argot]], slang, colloquialisms, [[doublespeak]], [[Legal writing|legalese]], or [[Wikipedia:Manual of Style#Technical language|jargon]] that is unintelligible to an average reader; it means that the English language should be used in a [[:Wiktionary:businesslike|businesslike]] manner. | |||
Articles should not be written from a first- or second-person perspective. In prose writing, the [[Wikipedia:Manual of Style#First-person pronouns|first-person]] (''I/me/my'' and ''we/us/our'') point of view and [[Wikipedia:Manual of Style#Second-person pronouns|second-person]] (''you'' and ''your'') point of view typically evoke a strong narrator. While this is acceptable in works of fiction and in monographs, it is unsuitable in an encyclopedia, where the writer should be invisible to the reader. Moreover, pertaining specifically to Wikipedia's policies, the first person often inappropriately implies a point of view inconsistent with the [[Wikipedia:Neutral point of view|neutrality policy]], while second person is associated with the step-by-step instructions of a how-to guide, which [[WP:NOT#HOWTO|Wikipedia is not]]. First- and second-person pronouns should ordinarily be used only in attributed direct quotations relevant to the subject of the article. As with many such guidelines, however, there can be occasional exceptions. For instance, the "[[Clusivity|inclusive ''we'']]" is widely used in professional mathematics writing, and though discouraged on Wikipedia [[Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Mathematics#Writing style in mathematics|even for that subject]], it has sometimes been used when presenting and explaining examples. [[WP:IAR|Use common sense]] to determine whether the chosen perspective is in the spirit of the guidelines. | |||
[[Gender-neutral pronoun]]s should be used (or pronouns avoided) where the gender is not specific; see [[Wikipedia:Gender-neutral language|Gender-neutral language]] for further information. | |||
Punctuation marks that appear in the article should be used only per generally accepted practice. Exclamation marks ([[Exclamation mark|!]]) should be used only if they occur in direct quotations. This is generally true of question marks ([[Question mark|?]]) as well; do not pose rhetorical questions for the reader.<ref>Rhetorical questions can occasionally be used, when appropriate, in the presentation of material, but only when the question is asked by the material under consideration, not being asked in Wikipedia's own voice. Example [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Policy_analysis&oldid=799273526#Five-E_approach here].</ref> | |||
As a [[WP:What Wikipedia is not#News|matter of policy]], Wikipedia is not written in [[news style]] in other senses than the inverted pyramid (above), including tone. The encyclopedic and journalistic intent and audience are different. Especially avoid [[Wikipedia:Neutral point of view|bombastic wording]], attempts at humor or cleverness, reliance on [[WP:Identifying reliable sources|primary sources]], [[Wikipedia:No original research|editorializing]], [[WP:Recentism|recentism]], [[pull quotes]], [[journalese]], and [[headlinese]]. | |||
Similarly, avoid news style's close sibling, ''[[Persuasive writing|persuasive style]]'', which has many of those faults and more of its own, most often various kinds of [[appeal to emotion]] and related [[List of fallacies|fallacies]]. This style is used in press releases, advertising, op-ed writing, activism, propaganda, proposals, formal debate, reviews, and much tabloid and sometimes investigative journalism. It is not Wikipedia's role to try to convince the reader of anything, only to provide the salient facts as best they can be determined, and the reliable sources for them. | |||
Not all tone flaws are immediately obvious as bias, original research, or other policy problems, but may be relevance, [[Register (sociolinguistics)|register]], or other content-presentation issues. A common one is the idea, often taught to debate students, that each section or even paragraph should introduce a key statement (a ''thesis''), then supporting evidence in additional sentences, and finish with a recapitulation of the original thesis in different wording. This style is redundant and brow-beating, and should not be used in encyclopedic writing.<ref>For an example found in, and removed from, a high-profile article, see [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Calculus&type=revision&diff=799020205&oldid=799019642 here].</ref> Another is attempting to make bits of material "pop" (an [[WP:UNDUE|undue weight]] problem), such as with excessive emphasis, the inclusion of [[Hyperbole|hyperbolic]] adjectives and adverbs, or the use of unusual synonyms or [[Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Words to watch|loaded words]]. Just present the sourced information without embellishment, agenda, or fanfare. Another presentation problem is "info-dumping" by presenting information the form of a long, bulletized list when it would be [[Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Embedded lists|better given as normal prose paragraphs]]. This is especially true when the items in the list are not of equal importance or are not really comparable in some other way, and need context. Using explanatory prose also helps identify and remove [[Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Trivia sections|trivia]]. | |||
