Open main menu

User:Robbiemuffin/L2 Presentation Patterns/conventions of this book

Avoid peacock and weasel termsEdit

Avoid peacock terms that show off the subject of the article without containing any real information. Similarly, avoid weasel words that offer an opinion without really backing it up, and which are really used to express a non-neutral point of view.

Examples of peacock terms
an important... one of the most prestigious... one of the best...
the most influential... a significant... the greatest...
Examples of weasel words
Some people say... widely regarded as... widely considered...
...has been called... It is believed that... It has been suggested/noticed/decided...
Some people believe... It has been said that... Some would say...
Legend has it that... Critics say that... Many/some have claimed...

Believe in your subject. Let the facts speak for themselves. If your w:ice hockey player, canton, or species of w:beetle is worth the reader's time, it will come out through the facts. However, in some cases (for example, history of graphic design) using superlative adjectives (in the "... one of the most important figures in the history of ..." format) in the description may help readers with no previous knowledge about the subject to acknowledge the importance or generally perceived status of the subject discussed. Note that to use the this type of superlative adjective format, the claim must be supported by the most reputable experts in the respective field.

Avoid blanket terms unless you have verified them. For example, this article states that of the 18 Montgomery Counties in the United States, most are named after Richard Montgomery. This is a blanket statement. It may very well be true, but is it reliable? In this instance the editor had done the research to verify this. Without the research, the statement should not be made. It is always a good idea to describe the research done and sign it on the article's talk page.

If you wish to, or must refer to an opinion, first make sure it is given by someone who holds some standing in that subject. A view on former American President w:Gerald Ford from w:Henry Kissinger is more interesting for the reader than one from your teacher at school. Then say who holds the opinion being given, preferably with a source or a quote for it. Compare the following:

Some critics of w:George W. Bush have said he has low intelligence.
Author w:Michael Moore in his book w:Stupid White Men wrote an open letter to George Bush. In it, he asked, "George, are you able to read and write on an adult level?".


Sometimes the way around using these terms is to replace the statements with the facts that backs it up:

"The Yankees are one of the greatest baseball teams in history."
"The New York Yankees have won 26 World Series championships—almost three times as many as any other team."

(What does the phrase in history mean, anyway?)

By sticking to concrete and factual information, we can avoid the need to give any opinion at all. Doing so also makes for writing that is much more interesting, for example:

William Peckenridge, eighth Duke of Omnium (w:1642? – w:May 8, w:1691) is widely considered to be one of the most important men to carry that title.
William Peckenridge, eighth Duke of Omnium (w:1642? – w:May 8, w:1691) was personal counselor to King James I, general in the w:Wars of the Roses, a w:chemist, w:bandleader, and the director of the secret society known as w:The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen. He expanded the title of Omnium to include protectorship of Guiana and right of revocation for civil-service appointments in w:India.

w:Show, don't tell. The first example simply tells the reader that William Peckenridge was important. The second example shows the reader why he was important.


When repeating established views, it may be easier to simply state: "Before w:Nicolaus Copernicus, most people thought the sun revolved round the earth", rather than sacrifice clarity with details and sources, particularly if the statement forms only a small part of your article. However, in general, everything should be sourced, whether within the text, with a footnote, or with a general reference.

Avoid devilishly flawed reasoningEdit

A great example of devilishly flawed reasoning can be seen at Hangul, I am borrowing the meat of it here:

  • Pronunciation and translation:
a person who cannot do it
  • Phonemic transcription:
  • Morphophonemic transcription
  • Morpheme-by-morpheme gloss:
      못-하-는 사람-이
   mos-ha-neun saram-i
   cannot-do-[modifier] person-[subject]
  • Modern orthography
못 하는 사람이

The code looks like this:

<!-- vv These transcriptions are correct; please see the talk page. vv -->
*Pronunciation and translation:
:''a person who cannot do it''
*Phonemic transcription:
*Morphophonemic transcription
*Morpheme-by-morpheme [[gloss]]:
|     ||못-하-는||사람-이
|  ||mos-ha-neun||saram-i
|  ||cannot-do-[modifier]||person-[subject]
*Modern orthography
:못 하는 사람이
<!-- ^^ These transcriptions are correct; please see the talk page. ^^ -->

So, you can see the author anticipates challenges to what is otherwise a rather straightforward looking example. What this does, in effect, is it injects a negative bias into the example that matches an instance where someone reading up on Hangul and wanting to learn or having difficulty, sees a defeatist message. This deflates morale, and cannot be tolerated in any neutral text.

Block quotesEdit

In the book of life, the answers aren't in the back.

-Charlie Brown

Actual quotes should use the User:Robbiemuffin/Templates/Blockquote template.

The code looks like this:

|In the book of life, the answers aren't in the back.
|Charlie Brown}}


"In the book of life, the answers aren't in the back." As quoted from Peanuts, Charlie Brown

Actual insets should use the User:Robbiemuffin/Templates/Insert template.

The code looks like this:

"In the book of life, the answers aren't in the back." As quoted from Peanuts, Charlie Brown



Each new page in the flow of the book (excepting the contents page and other special pages) should begin with a contents block. Depending on the content it may need a "clear=yes" flag.

Otherwise this could happen

here is the code for a Contents Block:

<span id="Contents" />{{User:Robbiemuffin/Templates/Contents Block
|title='''''L2 Presentation Patterns'''''
|contents=User:Robbiemuffin/L2 Presentation Patterns/Contents/registry


Every page should end with a recap with a link to the contents block for that page. See the main page for an example, here is the code for that section:

== Recap ==

This book attempts to present the oft-hidden structure in online L2 language instruction. We will flesh out a 
general framework of: The sounds and writing of the language, at least a working vocabulary of lexemes, a grammar, 
complete with semantic and pragmatic coverage specific to the logosphere, and culture. Later we will work with this 
framework in a more directed fashion.

'''Return to the [[User:Robbiemuffin/L2 Presentation Patterns#Contents|Contents]]'''



Modules should be transcluded into each chapter, of the form: /L2 Presentation Patterns/CHAPTER/MODULE. And display a heading link like the following: * transcluded from the Writing System Module: visit it on that page for the recap section of the module.


Within each module will be scaffolds made of patterns and data. Although the scaffolding should not be transcluded per se, it is important that each have a visual representation if nothing else, and that this itself be transcludable. They should be kept in /L2 Presentation Patterns/CHAPTER/Scaffolding/MODULE


The patterns should also be transcluded: /L2 Presentation Patterns/Patterns/PATTERN