Wikipedia:Make technical articles understandable: Difference between revisions

Revision as of 10:17, 19 August 2025

Latest revision as of 19:25, 19 August 2025

(One intermediate revision by one other user not shown)

Line 8:

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.

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....

uu_...rma..

== Audience ==

Line 39 ⟶ 37:

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.

=== "Introduction to..." articles ===

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]].

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".

== Avoid overly technical language ==

Line 107 ⟶ 97:

* {{tlx|Location map}}: to overlay a marker + label onto a map/image;

* {{tlx|Superimpose}}: to overlay onto an unbordered image, such as open diagrams.

=== "Introduction to..." articles ===

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]].

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".

==See also==