The whole project of Wikipedia is a process of trial and error. All of us are bound to make mistakes.
Chances are that what you've done on Wikipedia isn't wrong, they are all well intended, and it's just that Wikipedia is not meant to be the place to do those things. No need to be frustrated, not at all; what you need to do is go to the right site.
In many cases the best way to improve an article is to rewrite it, therefore, be bold like hell.
Internal links are for the sake of convenience, not obligatory. Before creating an internal link, ask yourself: would people also want to or need to know about that? The internal links of dates are most annoying: in most cases we won't care to click them (the links of the birth and death years are useful in a biographical article, though: they give context to the life of the subject).
Work the "See also" into the main text, to show why they should also be seen.
Sectioning facilitates editing, but avoid too-short sections. Divide an article into as few sections as possible.
In a biographical article, the person's photo doesn't need a caption, unless there's something about the image that you want to specify (taken at which year etc).
Are you sure the image of a book/album cover, which is usually copyrighted, can help illustrate an article?
We don't need to provide a source for every statement in an article, but make sure what you say is at least source-able: you can provide a source for a statement when someone asks for it.
Do provide a source for any quote, though. Don't attribute words to someone unless you have a source.
Think twice or thrice before copy-and-pasting the 1911 Encyclopædia Britannica. Both the content and the style are outdated - the latter more often than not violates NPOV.
This user considers singular they standard English usage.
|
’s
Thi's user know's that not every word that end's with s need's an apostrophe and will remove misused apostrophe's from Wikipedia with extreme prejudice.
