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 12:18, 8 January 2018
, 8 January 2018→Tone
(→Tone) |
(→Tone) |
||
| Line 64: | Line 64: | ||
===Tone=== | ===Tone=== | ||
'''Chalo Chatu is not a manual, guidebook, textbook, or scientific journal'''. Articles, and other encyclopedic content, should be written in a formal tone. Standards for formal tone vary a bit depending upon the subject matter, but should usually match the style used in [[Chalo Chatu:Featured articles|Featured]]- and [[Chalo Chatu: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 | '''Chalo Chatu is not a manual, guidebook, textbook, or scientific journal'''. Articles, and other encyclopedic content, should be written in a formal tone. Standards for formal tone vary a bit depending upon the subject matter, but should usually match the style used in [[Chalo Chatu:Featured articles|Featured]]- and [[Chalo Chatu: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 argot, slang, colloquialisms, doublespeak, legalese, or jargon that is unintelligible to an average reader; it means that the English language should be used in a businesslike manner. | ||
Articles should not be written from a first- or second-person perspective. In prose writing, the | Articles should not be written from a first- or second-person perspective. In prose writing, the first-person (''I/me/my'' and ''we/us/our'') point of view and 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 Chalo Chatu's policies, the first person often inappropriately implies a point of view inconsistent with the neutrality policy, while second person is associated with the step-by-step instructions of a how-to guide, which Chalo Chatu 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 "inclusive ''we''" is widely used in professional mathematics writing, and though discouraged on Chalo Chatu even for that subject, it has sometimes been used when presenting and explaining examples. Use common sense to determine whether the chosen perspective is in the spirit of the guidelines. | ||
Gender-neutral pronouns should be used (or pronouns avoided) where the gender is not specific. | |||
Punctuation marks that appear in the article should be used only per generally accepted practice. Exclamation marks ( | Punctuation marks that appear in the article should be used only per generally accepted practice. Exclamation marks (!) should be used only if they occur in direct quotations. This is generally true of question marks (?) 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 Chalo Chatu's own voice. Example [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Policy_analysis&oldid=799273526#Five-E_approach here].</ref> | ||
As a ' matter of policy | 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, ''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. | 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, 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. | 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. | ||
