美货运飞船“天鹅”号将携数吨物质飞往国际空间站
Content deleted Content added
WhatamIdoing (talk | contribs) Copyedit |
→=== Principle of least astonishment ===: shorter sections are more readable ? |
||
| (11 intermediate revisions by 8 users not shown) | |||
Line 91:
The exact organizing principle of a particular summary-style article is highly context-dependent, with various options, such as chronological, geographical, and alphabetical (primarily in lists), among others.
Some examples of summary style are the former featured articles ''[[Association football]]'' and ''[[Music of the Lesser Antilles]]''.
=== Inverted pyramid ===
Line 108:
{{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|
==== 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> ====
Line 115:
{{shortcut|WP:PRONOUN|WP:PRONOUNS|WP:NARRATOR}}
Articles should not be written from a
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> ====
Line 129:
{| 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.
Line 138:
|}
==== 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]].
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:
Line 152:
:{{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.
Line 206:
Remember that every Wikipedia article is tightly connected to a network of other topics. Establishing such connections via wikilink is a good way to establish context. Because Wikipedia is not a long, ordered sequence of carefully categorized articles like a paper encyclopedia, but a collection of randomly accessible, highly interlinked ones, each article should contain links to more ''general'' subjects that serve to [[Wikipedia:Categorization|categorize]] the article. When creating links, do not go overboard, and be careful to make your links relevant. It is not necessary to link the same term twelve times (although if it appears in the lead, then near the end, it might be a good idea to link it twice).
Avoid making your articles [[Wikipedia:Orphan|orphans]]. When you write a new article, make sure that one or more other pages link to it, to lessen the chances that your article will be orphaned through someone else's
=== State the obvious ===
Line 279:
=== Principle of least astonishment ===<!-- This section is linked from [[Wikipedia:Redirect]] -->
{{
{{seealso|WP:NOTWHATFIRSTCOMESTOMIND|MOS:BOLDREDIRECT|WP:R#ASTONISH|WP:Principle of Some Astonishment}}
{{shortcut|WP:PLA|WP:LEAST|WP:ASTONISH|WP:SURPRISE}}
When the [[principle of least astonishment]] is successfully employed, information is understood by the reader without struggle. The average reader should not be shocked, surprised, or confused by what they read. Do not use provocative language. Instead, offer information gently. Use consistent vocabulary in parts that are technical and difficult. To work out which parts of the sentence are going to be difficult for the reader, try to put yourself in the position of a reader hitherto uninformed on the subject.
You should plan your page structure and links so that everything appears reasonable and makes sense. A link should not take readers to somewhere other than where they thought it would go. Avoid [[WP:EASTEREGG|Easter-egg links]], which require the reader to open them before understanding what's going on. Instead, use a [[appositive|short phrase or a few words]] to describe what the link will refer to once it's opened.
Similarly, make sure that concepts being used as the basis for further discussion have already been defined or linked to a proper article. Explain causes before consequences and make sure your logical sequence is clear and sound, especially to the layperson. Ensure that [[Wikipedia:Redirect|redirects]] and [[Wikipedia:Hatnote|hatnotes]] that are likely to be useful are in place. ▼
▲Similarly, make sure that concepts being used as the basis for further discussion have already been defined or linked to a proper article. Explain causes before consequences and make sure your logical sequence is clear and sound, especially to the layperson.
We cannot control all astonishment – the point of an encyclopedia is to learn things, after all. But limiting the surprises our readers find within our articles' text will encourage rather than frustrate our readers.
Line 299 ? 295:
Phrases such as '''''refers to''''', ''is the name of'', ''describes'', or ''is a term for'' are sometimes used inappropriately in the first sentence of Wikipedia articles.
For
For example, the article [[Computer architecture]] once began with the sentence, "{{!xt|'''Computer architecture''' refers to the theory behind the design of a computer.}}"
Line 308 ? 304:
[[WP:Disambiguation|Disambiguation pages]] ''mention'' the term, so in such cases it is correct to write "{{xt|'''Great Schism''' may refer to either of two schisms in the history of Christianity: ...}}". However, a [[WP:What is an article?|content article]] should read "{{xt|There have been two '''Great Schisms''' in the history of Christianity}}".
{{anchor|ISWHEN|IS WHEN}}{{shortcut|WP:ISWHEN}}
Similarly, use of the term '''''is when''''' is discouraged in the first sentence, as it may be imprecise, produce vague or circular definitions, or define a term using a time clause when time is not central to the definition. Instead, use a strong [[Copula (linguistics)|copula]] like '''''is''''', followed by a [[noun phrase]].
For example, the article [[Nuchal cord]] once began with the sentence, "{{!xt|A '''nuchal cord''' is when the [[umbilical cord]] becomes wrapped around the [[fetus]]'s neck.}}" However, timing has nothing to do with the definition. It is better to say, "{{xt|A '''nuchal cord''' is a condition in which the [[umbilical cord]] becomes wrapped around the [[fetus]]'s neck.}}"
=== Check your facts === <!-- This section is linked from [[Wikipedia:Check your facts]] -->
| |||