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 09:52, 8 January 2018
, 8 January 2018→Tone
(→Tone) |
|||
| Line 72: | Line 72: | ||
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> | 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 | As a ' matter of policy]], Chalo Chatu 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 bombastic wording, attempts at humor or cleverness, reliance on .primary sources, editorializing ,recentism, pull quotes, journalese, and headlinese. | ||
Similarly, avoid news style's close sibling, '' | Similarly, avoid news style's close sibling, ''persuasive style'', which has many of those faults and more of its own, most often various kinds of appeal to emotions related 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 Chalo Chatu'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, | Not all tone flaws are immediately obvious as bias, original research, or other policy problems, but may be relevance, 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 undue weight problem), such as with excessive emphasis, the inclusion of hyperbolic adjectives and adverbs, or the use of unusual synonyms or 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 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 trivia. | ||
