User talk:Ndshankar

-- Wikinews Welcome (talk) 18:19, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

Trouble with sources
Hi. I looked at your other article (SVTCobra had successfully reviewed one) and found two of the sources paywalled. I remarked further on the article's talk page. --Pi zero (talk) 20:31, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

"Use your own words"
When one can't figure out how else to say something, there's nothing quite so frustrating, I've noticed over the years, as being told "use your own words", as if that were somehow enough to tell me how to say it differently. I've noticed, though, that once you get in the habit of expressing information in a completely different way than the sources, it can become natural as breathing, and then when you see someone else closely imitating the way something was said in a source you find yourself thinking, "use your own words" :-)

For me, a particularly memorable experience was the first time I reviewed a synthesis article by Blood Red Sandman (BRS). Because I was reviewing it, I got to see it from the inside out, studying how each bit of the article related to the bits of the sources that verified it. Typically, a synthesis sentence would contain information from multiple widely scattered parts of the sources, often in different sources; and a given source sentence might provide bits of information to multiple, widely scattered parts of the synthesis. It was quite a revelation in terms of what is possible, going far, far beyond merely rewording a particular sentence. Ever since, I've been looking for some way to share with new arrivals that inside-out view of a really well-synthesized article. Unfortunately, it's not as easy as a reviewer demonstrating for a writer what's needed by fixing copyvio problems in an article they've written: the reviewer is limited in how much they can do, because the reviewer is supposed to remain sufficiently uninvolved with writing the article that they still qualify as an independent reviewer. The result is that about all the reviewer can do is rearrange a few particular sentences, which is not what the writer should be trying to do. And we tend to be left saying "use your own words". --Pi zero (talk) 12:09, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

Rick Perry article
I'm going to post the glut of what your wrote to an ancillary User talk page for you.....you submitted a lot of words!! Possibly, you can even spin that stuff into a totally different article down the road. --Bddpaux (talk) 18:26, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
 * and most of that will be found here: User talk:Ndshankar/Perry deleted text