Editing Incubator escapee wiki:Writing better articles (section)

=== Tone<span id="WPMOSTONE"></span><span id="WPSLANG"></span> ===
{{Shortcut|WP:TONE|WP:SLANG}}
{{Redirect|WP:SLANG|the policy that covers writing Wikipedia articles about slang terms|WP:Wikipedia is not a dictionary{{!}}WP:NOTSLANG}}
{{See also|Wikipedia:Neutral point of view#Impartial tone|Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons#Tone}}

[[Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not#Wikipedia is not a manual, guidebook, textbook, or scientific journal|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 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 [[argot]], [[slang]], [[colloquialism]]s, [[doublespeak]], [[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 (e.g. use "{{xt|feel}}" or "{{xt|atmosphere}}" instead of "{{!xt|vibes}}").

==== Use of pronouns<span id="Use of pronouns"></span><span id="Pronouns"></span><span id="WPPRONOUN"></span><span id="WPPRONOUNS"></span><span id="WPNARRATOR"></span><span id="WPDONTNARRATE"></span> ====
{{redirect|WP:PRONOUNS|information on the usage of pronouns in relation to gender identity|Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Biography#Gender identity}}
{{See also|Wikipedia:Manual of Style#Pronouns}}
{{shortcut|WP:PRONOUN|WP:PRONOUNS|WP:NARRATOR}}

Articles should not be written from a [[Wikipedia:Manual of Style#First-person pronouns|first-person]] (''I/me/my'' and ''we/us/our'') or [[Wikipedia:Manual of Style#Second-person pronouns|second-person]] (''you'' and ''your'') point of view. The first person often inappropriately implies a point of view inconsistent with the [[Wikipedia:Neutral point of view|neutrality policy]], while the second person is associated with the step-by-step instructions of a how-to guide, which [[Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not#Wikipedia is not a manual, guidebook, textbook, or scientific journal|Wikipedia is not]]. First- and second-person pronouns should ordinarily be used only in attributed direct quotations relevant to the subject of the article.

There can be exceptions to these guidelines. For instance, the "[[Clusivity|inclusive ''we'']]" widely used in professional mathematics writing is sometimes used to present and explain examples in articles, although discouraged on Wikipedia [[Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Mathematics#Writing style in mathematics|even for that subject]].

Avoid gendered language when possible.  For example, write {{Xt|the children}} or {{Xt|the actors}} rather than {{!xt|the boys and girls}} or {{!xt|the actors and actresses}}.  Use the [[Singular they|singular ''they'']] instead of the [[Generic he|generic ''he'']], or write sentences in plural. {{Crossref|See {{slink|Wikipedia:Manual of Style#Identity}} and [[Wikipedia:Gender-neutral language]] for further advice.}}

==== News style or persuasive writing<span id="WPNEWSSTYLE"></span><span id="WPPERSUASIVE"></span><span id="WP:NOPERSUASIVE"></span> ====
{{shortcut|WP:NEWSSTYLE|WP:PERSUASIVE}}

A Wikipedia article should not [[news style|sound like a news article]]. Especially avoid [[Wikipedia:Neutral point of view|bombastic wording]], attempts at humor or cleverness, over-reliance on [[WP:Identifying reliable sources|primary sources]], [[Wikipedia:No original research|editorializing]], [[WP:Recentism|recentism]], [[pull quotes]], [[journalese]], and [[headlinese]].

Similarly, avoid [[persuasive writing]], which has many of those faults and more of its own, most often various kinds of [[appeals to emotion]] and related [[List of fallacies|fallacies]]. This style is used in press releases, advertising, [[editorial 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.
{| class="wikitable"
|+Comparison of styles
!{{No|}} News style
!{{No|}} Persuasive style
!{{Yes|}} Encyclopedic style
|-
|At a press conference on Monday evening, Sue Speaker, the spokesperson for the agency, announced that the investigation would officially be closed the next day.
|The recently closed investigation demonstrates again why everyone should support restrictions on social media use by children and teenagers, since it harms their privacy, safety, finances, and mental health.
|The investigation was closed.
|}

==== Colloquial, emphatic or poetic language<span id="WPCOLLOQUIAL"></span><span id="WPCONVERSATIONAL"></span><span id="WPEMPHATIC"></span><span id="WPFORMAL"></span><span id="WPINFORMAL"></span><span id="WPPOETIC"></span> ====
{{shortcut|WP:COLLOQUIAL|WP:COLLOQUIALISM|WP:EMPHATIC|WP:FORMAL|WP:INFORMAL|WP:POETIC}}
{{See also|Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Words to watch#Puffery|Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Words to watch#Editorializing|Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Words to watch#Euphemisms}}

Another error of writing approach is attempting to make bits of material "pop" (an [[Wikipedia:Neutral point of view#Due and undue weight|undue weight]] problem), such as with excessive [[Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Text formatting#Emphasis|emphasis]], over-[[Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Capital letters|capitalization]], use of [[Wikipedia:Manual of Style#Contractions|contractions]], unnecessary [[Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Abbreviations|acronyms and other abbreviations]], 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, fanfare, cleverness, or conversational tone.

An extreme example of hyperbole and emphatic language taken from [[Special:Permalink/932854447|Star Canopus diving accident]] as of 28 December 2019 (fixed in the next two revisions) read:

:{{!xt|Miraculously both divers survived the 294-foot fall, but now they faced a harrowing predicament. ... Helplessly trapped, with nothing to keep them warm, ... all they could do was huddle together and pray that rescuers would find them in time. ... But time was not on their side.}}

This was fixed to:

:{{xt|Both divers survived the 294-foot fall.}}

See [[Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Words to watch]] for other examples. Avoid using words and phrases like ''{{!xt|terrible}}'', ''{{!xt|rising star}}'', ''{{!xt|curiously}}'', ''{{!xt|championed the likes of}}'' or ''{{!xt|on the other side of the pond}}'', unless part of a quotation or stated as an external viewpoint.

Punctuation marks that appear in the article should be used only per generally accepted practice. [[Exclamation mark]]s (!) should be used only if they occur in direct quotations.

==== Rhetorical questions<span id="WPRHETORICAL"></span> ====
{{shortcut|WP:RHETORICAL}}
{{See also|MOS:SOCRATIC}}

As with exclamation marks, [[question mark]]s (?) should also generally only be used if they occur in direct quotations; do not pose [[rhetorical question]]s for the reader.

For example, do not write:

:{{!xt|There are many environmental concerns when it comes to [[industrial effluent]]. How can these be solved? Well, one solution involves ...}}

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.

For example:

:{{xt|One model of policy analysis is the "five-E approach", which consists of examining a policy in terms of:}}
:{{xt|'''Effectiveness'''}}
::{{xt|How well does it work (or how well will it be predicted to work)?}}
:{{xt|'''Efficiency'''}}
::{{xt|How much work does or will it entail? Are there significant costs associated with this solution, and are they worth it? ...}}<ref>Taken from [[Special:Permalink/799273526|Policy analysis]] as of 6 September 2017.</ref>

==== Inappropriate lists ====
{{See also|Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lists#Use prose where understood easily}}

A related presentation problem is "info-dumping" by presenting information in the form of a long, bulleted list when it would be [[Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Embedded lists|better 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]]; if we cannot explain to readers why something is [[Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not#Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information|important]], then it is not important.