Jump to content

Wikipedia:Make technical articles understandable and Wikipedia:Make technical articles understandable/Workshop: Difference between pages

(Difference between pages)

EatingCarBatteries (talk | contribs)

2 user groups
10,693 edits
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
More appropriate template for guideline pages
Tags: Mobile edit Mobile web edit Advanced mobile edit
 
→Avoid overly technical language: Converted normal text 'see also' to template
 
Line 1: Line 1:
{{short description|Wikipedia editing guideline}}
{{Under discussion|talk=RfC: Amending the guideline text}}
{{Redirect|WP:TECHNICAL}}
{{Redirect|WP:TECHNICAL}}
{{nutshell|Make every part of each article as clear as possible for the broadest likely audience.}}
{{subcat guideline|editing guideline|Make technical|WP:MTAU|WP:TECHNICAL}}
{{nutshell|Strive to make each part of every article as understandable as possible to the widest audience of readers who are likely to be interested in that material.}}
{{Guideline list}}
{{Guideline list}}
Wikipedia articles should be written for the [[Wikipedia:AUDIENCE|widest possible general audience]].
Wikipedia articles should be written for the [[Wikipedia:AUDIENCE|widest possible general audience]].


Wikipedia serves readers with widely varying backgrounds, interests, and goals. Even in articles on the most complex subjects, the audience includes students, professionals from other fields, and curious laypeople. Information that is clear and easy to follow benefits all of them.
As a free encyclopedia, Wikipedia serves readers with a wide range in backgrounds, interests, and goals. Even for articles about the most technically demanding subjects, these readers include students and curious laypeople in addition to experts. While upholding the goals of accuracy and full coverage of the most important aspects of a topic, every effort should be made to also make articles accessible and pleasant to read for less-prepared readers. It is especially important to make the [[WP:LEAD|lead section]] understandable using plain language, and it is often helpful to begin with more common and accessible subtopics, then proceed to those requiring advanced knowledge or addressing niche specialties.


Every effort should be made to make articles accessible and pleasant to read for less-prepared readers, without losing accuracy or leaving out important content. The [[WP:LEAD|lead section]] should use plain language and present the topic in a way that draws in a broad readership. For the body of the article, a common strategy is to begin with easier aspects of the subject before moving to more advanced or specialized material. Well-designed images can greatly help understanding too.
Articles should be written in encyclopedic style, which differs from the technically dense style found in scholarly writing aimed at specialists. Articles should address the topic without twisting the truth or telling "[[Lie-to-children|lies-to-children]]", but should also minimise (unexplained) [[jargon]] and not take prior knowledge for granted. Articles should be self-contained as much as possible, rather than relying on excessive links to explain unfamiliar concepts.


Wikipedia's style is encyclopedic, not academic. Articles should avoid oversimplifications, but also minimize [[jargon]], and not take prior knowledge for granted. They should be largely self-contained, offering essential explanations within the text rather than relying on links. Since it is often hard to know what others do not understand, collaboration among editors with different levels of expertise can be very helpful.
== Audience ==

==Audience==
{{shortcut|WP:GENAUD}}
{{shortcut|WP:GENAUD}}
{{See also|WP:Writing better articles#Audience}}
{{See also|WP:Writing better articles#Audience}}
Wikipedia has a varied audience who can be graded in three ways:
Wikipedia has a varied audience can be in three ways:


* On familiarity with the subject<ref>In general on Wikipedia, a 2019 survey found that [[meta:Research:Characterizing_Wikipedia_Reader_Behaviour/Demographics_and_Wikipedia_use_cases#Prior_Knowledge|around 40% of readers]] say they are unfamiliar with the topic they are reading.</ref>
* On familiarity with the subject.
** The ''general reader'' has no advanced education in the topic's field, is largely unfamiliar with the topic itself, and may even be unsure what the topic is.
** The ''general reader'' is largely unfamiliar with the topic itself, and may even be unsure what the topic is.
** The ''knowledgeable reader'' has an education in the topic's field but wants to learn about the topic itself.
** The ''knowledgeable reader'' has an education in the topic's field but wants to learn about the topic itself.
** The ''expert reader'' knows the topic but wants to learn more or be quickly reminded about some fact, or is curious about Wikipedia's coverage.
** The ''expert reader'' knows the topic but wants or fact
* On reading ability<ref>For instance, [[meta:Research:Characterizing_Wikipedia_Reader_Behaviour/Demographics_and_Wikipedia_use_cases#Native_Language|over a third of readers]] speaks English as a second language</ref>
* On reading ability.
* By motivation to learn about the topic<ref>[[meta:Research:Characterizing Wikipedia Reader Behaviour/Prevalence of Wikipedia use cases|Around 25% of readers]] are looking for in-depth knowledge, while others may be interested in a fact or an overview of the topic. .
* By motivation to learn about the topic.
</ref>


<!-- What a good article needs for a varied audience -->
A highly educated, knowledgeable, motivated reader may comfortably read a 8,000-word featured article to the end. Another reader may struggle through the lead and look at the pictures. A good article will grab the interest of all readers and allow them to learn as much about the subject as they are able and motivated to do. An article may disappoint because it is written well above the reading ability of the reader, because it wrongly assumes the reader is familiar with the subject or field, or because it covers the topic at too basic a level or is not comprehensive.
A well-written article will grab the interest of all these groups and let them learn as much as they are able and motivated to do. An article may disappoint because it is written well above the reading ability of the reader, because it wrongly assumes certain background knowledge, or because it covers the topic at too basic a level and leaves out important content. Although different audiences have different needs, clear and understandable writing benefits readers across the board.


<!-- The audience for specialized articles -->
While a member of any of the audience groups may stumble upon an article and decide to read it (for example, by clicking on [[Special:Random]]), some subjects naturally attract a more limited audience. A topic that requires many years of specialist education or training prior to being studied or discussed is in general likely to have a more limited audience. For example, a topic in advanced mathematics, specialist law, or industrial engineering may contain material that only knowledgeable readers can appreciate or even understand. On the other hand, many subjects studied at an academically advanced level remain of interest to a wider audience. For example, the [[Sun]] is of interest to more than just astronomers, and [[Alzheimer's disease]] will interest more than just physicians.
Some subjects naturally attract a more limited audience, especially those that require years of specialist study. For example, a topic in advanced mathematics, specialist law, or industrial engineering may contain material that only knowledgeable readers can appreciate or even understand. Other highly complex topics, though, attract a wider audience. For example, the [[Sun]] is of interest to more than just astronomers, and [[Alzheimer's disease]] will interest more than just physicians.


<!--Different levels of writing understandability-->
Most Wikipedia articles can be written to be fully understandable by the general reader with average reading ability and motivation. Some articles are themselves technical in nature and some articles have technical sections or aspects. Many of these can still be written to be understandable to a wide audience. Some topics are intrinsically complex or require much prior knowledge gained through specialized education or training. It is unreasonable to expect a comprehensive article on such subjects to be understandable to all readers. The effort should still be made to make the article as understandable to as many as possible, with particular emphasis on the lead section.
Most Wikipedia articles can be written to be fully understandable to the general reader with average reading ability and motivation. Some articles are technical in nature and some have technical sections or aspects. Many of these can still be written to be understandable to a wide audience. Other topics are intrinsically complex or demand substantial prior knowledge. It is unreasonable to expect an article on such subjects to be understandable to all readers. The effort should still be made to make the article as understandable to as many as possible, with particular emphasis on the lead section.


===Write one level down===
===Write one level down===
{{shortcut|WP:ONEDOWN}}
{{shortcut|WP:ONEDOWN}}
A general technique for increasing understandability is to consider the typical level where the topic is studied (for example, [[secondary education|secondary]], [[undergraduate education|undergraduate]], or [[postgraduate education|postgraduate]]) and write the article for readers who are at the previous level. Thus articles on undergraduate topics can be aimed at a reader with a secondary school background, and articles on postgraduate topics can be aimed at readers with some undergraduate background. The lead section should be particularly understandable, but the advice to write one level down can be applied to the entire article, increasing the overall accessibility. Writing one level down also supports our goal to provide a tertiary source on the topic, which readers can use before they begin to read other sources about it.
to the typical level where the topic is studied (for example, [[secondary education|secondary]], [[undergraduate education|undergraduate]], or [[postgraduate education|postgraduate]]) and write the article for readers who are at the previous level. Thus articles on undergraduate topics can be aimed at a reader with a secondary school background, and articles on postgraduate topics can be aimed at readers with some undergraduate background. The lead section should be particularly understandable, but the advice to write one level down to the entire article. Writing one level down also supports our goal to provide a tertiary source on the topic, which readers can use before they begin to read other sources about it.


===Technical content===
===Technical content===
{{shortcut|WP:TECH-CONTENT}}
{{shortcut|WP:TECH-CONTENT}}
Wikipedia strives to be a serious reference resource, and highly technical subject matter still belongs in some Wikipedia articles. The goal is to make technical information easier to understand for less knowledgeable readers, without losing its value for experts.
Wikipedia to be a serious reference, and highly technical belongs in some articles. to less knowledgeable readers its value for experts.


When deciding how much technical detail to include, standard reference works in the field can serve as a guide. However, sources like scientific papers are often written for specialists and may assume more background knowledge than the Wikipedia audience for the topic. Textbooks can be useful for identifying ways to explain complex concepts more clearly to a broader audience.
Making articles more understandable does not necessarily mean that detailed technical content should be removed. For instance, an encyclopedia article about a chemical compound is expected to include properties of the compound, even if some of those properties are obscure to a general reader. Often, summarizing highly technical details can improve the readability of the text for general readers and experts alike. For example, a long-winded mathematical proof is unlikely to be read by either a general reader or an expert, but a short summary of the proof can inform a general reader without reducing the usefulness to an expert reader. When trying to decide how much technical detail to include, it may be helpful to compare with a standard reference work in the particular technical field.


== Avoid overly technical language ==
== language ==
{{main|Wikipedia:Manual of Style#Technical language}}


=== Avoid overly technical language ===
* '''Use jargon and acronyms judiciously.''' Explain technical terms and expand acronyms when they are first used. In addition, you might consider using them sparingly thereafter, or not at all. Especially if there are many new terms being introduced all at once, substituting a more familiar English word might help reduce confusion.
{{See also|Wikipedia:Manual of Style#Technical language}}
* '''If no precision is lost, use common terms instead of technical terms'''. Substitute technical terms with common terms where they are completely equivalent.
* '''Use less technical versions of words.''' For instance, say "emissions from vehicles", rather than "vehicular emissions".
* '''Consider prefacing explanatory sentences with caveats.''' When a less complete or precise explanation is given to improve clarity, preface it with a phrase such as "Generally..." or "With some exceptions..." so the reader knows that there is more complexity behind the explanation. Follow the brief explanatory sentence(s) with more detail, or include a "robust definition" section so that the article as a whole is complete and precise.
* '''Use bullet points where appropriate'''. Use bullet point to split up long sentences, but avoid paragraph-length bullet points.
* '''Use some short sentences and short paragraphs.''' Comprehension decreases when average sentence length exceeds about 12 words. However, using too many short sentences in a row becomes monotonous and stilted; vary sentence length to maintain reader interest. Similarly, split long paragraphs into smaller ones.
* '''Use language similar to what you would use in a conversation.''' Many people use more technical language when writing articles and speaking at conferences, but try to use more understandable prose in conversation.


To make Wikipedia articles accessible to the widest possible audience, avoid overly technical language. There are several ways to handle jargon—the best strategy is often to replace it with plain English, but for more technical articles you can provide brief explanations, or sometimes provide a wikilink.
==Structure==

Overexplained jargon can make an article less engaging, so consider whether the jargon can be avoided altogether. Sometimes, the solution is to dedicate a separate section to widely used terminology (e.g. [[Dementia with Lewy bodies#Terminology]]). Do not introduce technical terms just for the sake of teaching them.

# '''Avoid jargon by replacing it with plain English alternatives''', if there is minimal loss of precision. For instance, avoid Latin synonyms for species or anatomical concepts, except in their own article. Write {{xt|[[House sparrow]]}} instead of {{!xt|[[House sparrow]] (''Passer domesticus'')}} or {{!xt|''Passer domesticus''}}. Often, one can replace a jargon term directly with the explanation, and link the entire explanation to the respective article. E.g., {{xt|It is [[A posteriori|known from experience]] that …}} instead of {{!xt|A posteriori …}}
# '''Use plain English and add jargon between brackets once''' when the plain English term is clear, but you'd like to provide additional precision to experts, or when experts may only be familiar with the jargon. {{xt|The drug reduces the risk of a [[myocardial infarction|heart attack]] (myocardial infarction)}}. Consider whether wikilinking to the precise article is sufficient.
# '''Use the jargon and explain between brackets'''. This might be useful when the explanation is quite wordy and you want to reuse the jargon afterwards. Do not introduce too much jargon like this, as it rapidly becomes challenging to remember many new terms. This can be appropriate when you expect many readers to already be familiar with the jargon or if the jargon is essential for the rest of the article. Note that readers do not always read the article linearly.
# '''Use implicit explanations or definitions'''. For instance, the sentence "{{xt|The archaeologists used stratigraphy to determine which artifacts were oldest.}}" implies that stratigraphy is a dating method. This kind of contextual clue can help readers recall the meaning of a term introduced earlier, without repeating the full definition.
# Only rely on '''wikilinks''' on their own when you expect most of your readers to already be familiar with the term

Use the most familiar form of jargon wherever possible. For instance, write {{xt|emissions from vehicles}} rather than {{!xt|vehicular emissions}}. Expand abbreviations when they are first used, and repeat as necessary in further sections. Avoid [[elegant variation]] with technical terms: using different words to refer to the same concept can create ambiguity.

=== Words with different meanings for experts and non-experts ===
Some words have a different meaning for experts than for non-experts. For example, an [[uncertainty interval]] indicates how confident scientists are in a certain finding, but the word ''uncertainty'' may imply the opposite to readers. Avoid such terms whenever they could create ambiguity, or, if that is not possible, explain.

{| class="wikitable"
|+Words can have different meanings to different audiences
!Word
!Expert meaning
!Normal meaning
|-
|Theory
|Current understanding based on evidence
|Hunch, something unproven
|-
|Significant
|Statistically unlikely to have happened by chance
|Important
|-
|Error
|Difference between measurement and true value
|A mistake
|-
|Bias
|A systemic deviation from the true value
|Prejudice
|-
|Model
|A mathematical or cognitive model of some aspect of reality
|A physical thing, such as a model train
|}

=== Use plain English ===
Communicating technical content in plain English benefits everyone, from experts to novices. It ensures readers can focus on the material without being distracted by complex language. Many Wikipedia readers speak [[English as a second language]] and may be unfamiliar with more [[idiomatic]] language (phrases that do not translate literally). A few tips for writing clearly:

* '''Use simpler synonyms'''. Replace {{!xt|utilize}} with {{xt|use}}, {{!xt|comprise}} with {{xt|consist of}}, {{!xt|commence}} with {{xt|start}}, {{!xt|terminate}} with {{xt|end}}, and {{!xt|prior to}} with {{xt|before}}.
* '''Avoid long sentences, paragraphs and sections'''. Only using short sentences impedes flow, which makes it more challenging to read, so vary with medium-length sentences. Understanding starts to decline when average sentence length exceeds 15 words.<ref>A study by the [[American Press Institute]] based on newspaper articles found that people fully understand 8-word sentences, understand 90% of 15-word sentences, 50% of 28-word sentences and 10% of 43-word sentences; {{Cite book |last=Dennis |first=Meredith |date=2021 |title=Explaining Research: How to Reach Key Audiences to Advance Your Network |url=https://academic.oup.com/book/39929 |language=en |isbn = 9780197571347|page=85 |publisher=Oxford University Press }}</ref>
* '''[[WP:REDEX|Avoid redundancy]]''' to keep sentences to the point.
* '''Put important information at the start and end''', and do not delay your main verb. Replace "{{!xt|Effective education policies, by providing better resources and training for teachers, improve student outcomes.}}" with "{{xt|Effective education policies improve student outcomes by providing better resources and training for teachers.}}"
* '''Be concrete'''. For instance, say "{{xt|Rules that limit factory emissions help reduce pollution.}}" instead of "{{!xt|Environmental policies aim to reduce pollution}}". Avoid overuse of 'former' and 'latter', as readers have to go back to the previous sentence.
* '''Use bullet points''' [[Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Lists#Embedded_lists|where appropriate]] to organize complex information and highlight key points.

== Structure articles well ==
When organizing content, it is important to use a clear and logical structure that guides the reader through the material smoothly. This helps improve understanding and keeps the article accessible. Additionally, section headings should avoid jargon or specialized terms to ensure they are easily understood by a wide audience. For instance, use {{xt|Reproduction}} for a section header, rather than {{!xt|Phenology}}, or {{xt|Mechanism}} instead of {{!xt|Pathophysiology}}. Clear, simple headings make it easier for readers to navigate the article and find the information they need.


=== Lead section ===
=== Lead section ===
Line 56: Line 106:
{{shortcut|WP:EXPLAINLEAD}}
{{shortcut|WP:EXPLAINLEAD}}


It is particularly important for the [[WP:LEAD|first section]] (the "lead" section, above the first heading) to be understandable to a broad readership. Readers need to be able to tell what an article is about and whether they are reading the correct article, even if they don't already know the topic in detail. Those who are only looking for a summary or general definition may stop reading at the end of the lead. An understandable lead encourages readers to continue reading into the body of the article.
It is particularly important for the [[WP:LEAD|first section]] (the "lead" section, above the first heading) to be understandable to a broad readership. Readers need to be able to tell what an article is about and whether they are reading the correct article, even if they the topic. Those who are only looking for a summary or general definition may stop reading at the end of the lead. An understandable lead encourages readers to continue reading into the body of the article.


For these reasons, the lead should provide an understandable overview of the article. While the lead is intended to mention all key aspects of the topic in some way, accessibility can be improved by only summarizing the topic in the lead and placing the technical details in the body of the article. The lead of the article should tell a general reader the field of study of the topic, the place the topic holds in its field of study, what (if anything) the topic is good for, and what needs to be learned first in order to understand the article.
While the lead is intended to mention all key aspects of the topic in some way, accessibility can be improved by only summarizing the topic in the lead and placing the technical details in the body of the article. The lead of the article should tell a general reader the field of study of the topic, the place the topic holds in its field of study, what (if anything) the topic is good for, and what needs to be learned first in order to understand the article.


In general, the lead should not assume that the reader is well acquainted with the subject of the article. Terminology in the lead section should be [[WP:JARGON|understandable on sight]] to general readers whenever this can be done in a way that still adequately summarizes the article, and should not depend on a [[WP:wikilink|link]] to another article. Any link to another article should be a supplement to provide more information, and preferably should not be required for understanding text in the lead. For highly specialized topics where it is difficult to give an overview in terms with which a general audience will be familiar, it may be reasonable to assume some background knowledge in the lead while linking to the prerequisites required to understand it. For reference, the lead for a typical [[Wikipedia:Featured articles|Featured Article]] includes about 20 links to other articles (with a mean lead length around 300 words).
In general, the lead should not assume that the reader is well acquainted with the subject of the article. Terminology in the lead section should be [[WP:JARGON|understandable on sight]] to general readers whenever this can be done in a way that still adequately summarizes the article, and should not depend on a [[WP:wikilink|link]] to another article. Any link to another article should be a supplement to provide more information, and preferably should not be required for understanding text in the lead. For highly specialized topics difficult to in general may assume some knowledge to .


===Put the easier parts of the article up front===
===Put easier up front===
{{shortcut|WP:UPFRONT}}
{{shortcut|WP:UPFRONT}}


It's perfectly fine for later sections to be more technical, if necessary. Those who are not interested in details will simply stop reading at some point, which is why the material ''they'' are interested in needs to come first. Linked sections of the article should ideally start out at a similar technical level so that if the first, easier paragraph of an article links to a section in the middle of the article, the first part of the section linked to it should also be understandable. Further, even more-technical sections can often be improved upon by summarizing the main ideas in the first paragraph before going into details.
It's perfectly fine for later to be more technical, if necessary. Those who are not interested in details will simply stop reading at some point, which is why the material ''they'' are interested in needs to come first. the article the of article the of the of section understandable the


Avoid circular explanations: don't define A in terms of B, and B in terms of A. Check to make sure that technical terms are not used ''before'' they are defined.
Avoid circular explanations: don't define A in terms of B, and B in terms of A. Check to make sure that technical terms are not used ''before'' they are defined.


==Explain new concepts==
==Explain new concepts==
Here are some more ideas for dealing with moderately or highly technical subjects:


When explaining a complex concept, it is often helpful to start with an approximate explanation. When a less complete or precise explanation is given, preface it with a phrase such as "Generally..." or "With some exceptions...", or start the following sentence with "More precisely" or "More formally", so the reader knows that there is more complexity behind the explanation. Follow the brief explanatory sentence(s) with more detail, or include a "robust definition" section so that the article as a whole is complete and precise. For example, the mathematical concept of the [[Klein bottle]] is first explained in everyday terms, before a formal definition is given.
=== Add a concrete example===

Many technical articles are not understandable (and confusing even to expert readers) only because they are abstract. A concrete example can help many readers to put the abstract content in context. Sometimes a contrasting example (counterexample) can also be helpful. For instance, from the article [[verb]]:
A background section helps prepare people new to the topic. A good example of a background section can be found in {{section link|Special_relativity#Terminology}}. If possible, give the section a more specific name such as 'Terminology'.

=== Examples ===
Many technical articles are not understandable (and confusing even to expert readers) only because they are abstract. A concrete example can help many readers to put the abstract content in context. Sometimes a contrasting example (counterexample) can also be helpful. For instance, from the article [[verb]]:
:A '''verb''' is a [[word]] that generally conveys an action (''bring'', ''read'', ''walk'', ''run'', ''learn''), an occurrence (''happen'', ''become''), or a state of being (''be'', ''exist'', ''stand'').
:A '''verb''' is a [[word]] that generally conveys an action (''bring'', ''read'', ''walk'', ''run'', ''learn''), an occurrence (''happen'', ''become''), or a state of being (''be'', ''exist'', ''stand'').
Examples must still meet the same requirement of [[WP:NOR|no original research]] that other content is subject to.
Examples must still meet the same requirement of [[WP:NOR|no original research]] that other content is subject to.


=== Analogies ===
=== Analogies ===
Use analogies to describe a subject in everyday terms. Avoid far-out analogies. The best analogies can make all the difference between incomprehension and full understanding. However, [[WP:NOTTEXTBOOK|Wikipedia is not a textbook]], so analogies need to be written in an encyclopedic way and be [[WP:V|attributable]] to [[WP:RS|reliable sources]]. Extensive explanations without a specific source may constitute [[WP:NOR|original research]], or [[WP:SYNTH|original research by synthesis]].
analogies to describe a subject in everyday terms. Avoid far-out analogies. The best analogies can make all the difference between incomprehension and full understanding. However, [[WP:NOTTEXTBOOK|Wikipedia is not a textbook]], so analogies need to be written in an encyclopedic way and be [[WP:V|attributable]] to [[WP:RS|reliable sources]].
[[]]

: The two strands of DNA in a double helix can be pulled apart like a zipper.

Similarly, comparisons help provide context, especially size comparisons. For instance, the article on [[particulate matter]] compares these pollutants to the thickness of a human hair.


=== Explain formulae in English ===
=== Explain in English ===
When possible, even for experts it can be helpful to explain in English why the formula has certain features or is written a certain way. Explaining the "meaning" of a formula helps readers follow along. At a minimum, make sure all the variables in a formula are defined in the article, or have links to articles that explain them.
When possible, even for experts it can be helpful to explain in English why the formula has certain features or is written a certain way. Explaining the "meaning" of a formula helps readers follow along. At a minimum, make sure all the variables in a formula are defined in the article, or have links to articles that explain them.


Line 86: Line 145:
{{shortcut|WP:OVERSIMPLIFY}}
{{shortcut|WP:OVERSIMPLIFY}}
It is important not to oversimplify material in the effort to make it more understandable. Encyclopedia articles should not "[[Lie-to-children|tell lies to children]]" in the sense of giving readers an easy path to the feeling that they understand something when they don't.
It is important not to oversimplify material in the effort to make it more understandable. Encyclopedia articles should not "[[Lie-to-children|tell lies to children]]" in the sense of giving readers an easy path to the feeling that they understand something when they don't.

== Finding articles that are too technical ==
For articles that are not sufficiently understandable, the {{tlx|Technical}} template should be added at the top of the article. Leave an explanation on the talk page with how the article is too technical, or suggestions for improvement. Templates added without explanation might to be either ignored or removed. A list of overly technical articles can be found at [[:Category:Wikipedia articles that are too technical]]. For overly technical statements, use the inline template {{tlx|Technical statement}}.

This tag should be used only on articles which you feel could be improved by someone following the guidelines listed above.


== Use of visuals ==
== Use of visuals ==
{{See|Wikipedia:Graphs}}
{{See|Wikipedia:}}
Images enable many people to learn more effectively, and allow technical concepts to be communicated in a more concise and clear manner. Diagrams should be clearly described and where appropriate, should be related to the text or equations. When writing figure captions, keep in mind that readers may look at figures and captions before the surrounding text. Some templates that might be useful:
Images enable many people to learn more effectively to and . Diagrams should be clearly described and where appropriate, should be related to the text or equations. When captions, keep in mind that readers may look at figures and captions before the surrounding text. :


For simple data visualization (bar chart, line chart, etc.), you can use [[Wikipedia:Graphs|Wikipedia templates and extensions]]. For more complicated graphs, use [[Wikipedia:How to create charts for Wikipedia articles|external software]].
* {{tlx|Location map}}: to overlay a marker + label onto a map/image;
* {{tlx|Superimpose}}: to overlay onto an unbordered image, such as open diagrams.


== Seeking feedback ==
== "Introduction to..." articles ==
{{shortcut|WP:CURSE}}
For topics which are unavoidably technical but, at the same time, of significant interest to non-technical readers, one solution may be a separate introductory article. An example is [[Introduction to viruses]]. A complete list of current "Introduction to..." articles can be found in [[:Category:Introductory articles]], while a list of main articles thus supplemented is [[:Category:Articles with separate introductions]].
When people learn about a topic, they start overestimating how much others know about it. This effect, known as the [[curse of knowledge]], may lead them to overuse jargon or assume too much background knowledge. The [[cognitive bias]] is difficult to counter. Simply knowing about it, or imagining a less knowledgeable audience, does not reduce how much people overestimate their readers. Similarly, people usually writing for an academic audience may struggle to switch gears.

In keeping with the spirit of Wikipedia's [[WP:NOT]] policy, [[WP:LEAD]] guideline, and guideline on [[Wikipedia:Content forking|content forking]], the number of separate introductory articles should be kept to a minimum. Before you start one, ask yourself
*Following the advice given in the preceding sections, can the article be made sufficiently understandable as a whole, without the need for a separate introduction?
*Given the degree of general interest in the topic at hand, might a well-written lead be sufficient?
You may start an "Introduction to..." article if the answer to these questions is "no".


Given this, seeking feedback from others is key. As this guideline is part of the [[WP:GA?|GA criteria]], that is one avenue for feedback on understandability. WikiProjects and Wikipedia's [[WP:peer review|peer review]] process are another. Finally, consider asking friends and family to check parts of the article, if they are in the target audience.


==See also==
==See also==
Line 113: Line 163:
* [[Wikipedia:Many things to many people]]
* [[Wikipedia:Many things to many people]]
* [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Anatomy/Simplifying anatomical terminology]]
* [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Anatomy/Simplifying anatomical terminology]]
* [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Mathematics/Proofs]]
* [[Wikipedia:WikiProject /]]
* [[:Template:Technical]]
* [[:Template:Technical]]
* The [[w:simple:|Simple English Wikipedia]] aims to provide full explanations using a limited subset of English. It is a resource both for examples (articles) and advice (guidelines) on using simpler language without dumbing down.
* The [[w:simple:|Simple English Wikipedia]] aims to provide full explanations using a limited subset of English. It is a resource both for examples (articles) and advice (guidelines) on using simpler language without dumbing down.


== References and notes ==
==External links==
{{notelist}}
* [https://readability.toolforge.org/ Wikimedia tool to measure the readability of Wikipedia articles]
{{reflist}}
* {{cite web |url= https://www.nngroup.com/topic/writing-web/ |title= Topic: Writing for the Web |publisher= [[Nielsen Norman Group]]}}
** {{cite web |url= https://www.nngroup.com/articles/how-users-read-on-the-web/ |title= How Users Read on the Web |date= October 1, 1997
|author= [[Jakob Nielsen (usability consultant)|Jakob Nielsen]]}}
** {{cite web |url= https://www.nngroup.com/articles/writing-domain-experts/ |title= Writing Digital Copy for Domain Experts |author= Hoa Loranger and Kate Meyer |date= April 23, 2017 }}
** {{cite web |url= https://www.nngroup.com/articles/plain-language-experts/ |title= Plain Language Is for Everyone, Even Experts |author= Hoa Loranger |date= October 8, 2017 }}
* {{cite book |url= https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/GOVPUB-HE-PURL-LPS73842/pdf/GOVPUB-HE-PURL-LPS73842.pdf |title= Research-Based Web Design & Usability Guidelines |chapter= 15–Writing Web Content |publisher= U.S. Department of Health & Human Services |isbn= 0-16-076270-7 |date= August 15, 2006}}
* {{cite web |url= http://www.plainlanguage.gov/ |title= Plain Language Action and Information Network |publisher= U.S. Federal Government }}
* {{cite web |url= https://www.ucdmc.ucdavis.edu/cppn/health_education/guide.html |title= Guidelines for preparing patient education handouts |publisher= [[UC Davis]] |work= Center for Professional Practice of Nursing|archive-url= https://web.archive.org/web/20131207025517/https://www.ucdmc.ucdavis.edu/cppn/health_education/guide.html |archive-date= 2013-12-07 }}

{{Wikipedia policies and guidelines}}
[[Category:WikiProject Usability]]
[[Category:Wikipedia Manual of Style (related guidelines)]]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:ComparePages"