View source for Wikipedia:AUDIENCE

== Provide context for the reader ==
{{shortcut|WP:PCR|WP:AUDIENCE}}
{{redirect|WP:PCR|the pending changes reviewer user rights|Wikipedia:Reviewing pending changes}}
{{redirect|WP:AUDIENCE|guideline on notability of companies with regards to reach of sources|Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies)#Audience}}
{{For|context and linking|Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Linking}}

{{For|articles without context|:Category:Wikipedia articles needing context}}
{{About||article context notice |Template:Context|inline template for a general context problem|Template:Context inline}}

Wikipedia is an international encyclopedia. People who read Wikipedia have different backgrounds, education and opinions. Make your article accessible and understandable for as many readers as possible. Assume readers are reading the article to learn. It is possible that the reader knows nothing about the subject, so the article needs to explain the subject fully.

[[Wikipedia:Explain jargon|Avoid using jargon]] whenever possible. Consider the reader. An article entitled "Use of chromatic scales in early Baroque music" is likely to be read by musicians, and technical details and terms are appropriate, linking to articles explaining the technical terms. On the other hand, an article entitled "Baroque music" is likely to be read by laypersons who want a brief and plainly written overview, with links to available detailed information. When jargon is used in an article, a brief explanation should be given within the article. Aim for a balance between comprehensibility and detail so that readers can gain information from the article.

=== Evaluating context ===
Here are some [[thought experiment]]s to help you test whether you are setting enough context:
* Does the article make sense if the reader gets to it as a random page? ([[Special:Random]])
* Imagine yourself as a [[layperson]] in another English-speaking country. Can you figure out what the article is about?
* Can people tell what the article is about if the first page is printed out and passed around?
* Would a reader want to follow some of the links? Do sentences still make sense if they can't?

=== Build the web ===
{{Main|Wikipedia:Manual of Style (linking)}}

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 [[refactoring]]. Otherwise, when it falls off the bottom of the [[Special:Recentchanges|Recent Changes]] page, it will disappear into the [[Mariana Trench]]. There should always be an unbroken chain of links leading from the [[Main Page]] to every article in Wikipedia; following the path you would expect to use to find your article may give you some hints as to which articles should link to your article.

=== State the obvious ===
{{shortcut|WP:OBVIOUS}}
{{redirect|WP:OBVIOUS|the essay about over-citing obvious things|Wikipedia:You don't need to cite that the sky is blue}}
State facts that may be obvious to you, but are not necessarily obvious to the reader. Usually, such a statement will be in the first sentence or two of the article. For example, consider this sentence:
<blockquote>{{!xt|The '''[[Ford Thunderbird]]''' was conceived as a response to the [[Chevrolet Corvette]] and entered production for the 1955 model year.}}</blockquote>

Here no mention is made of the Ford Thunderbird's fundamental nature: it is an [[automobile]]. It assumes that the reader already knows this—an assumption that may not be correct, especially if the reader is not familiar with [[Ford Motors|Ford]] or [[Chevrolet]]. Perhaps instead:
<blockquote>{{xt|The '''[[Ford Thunderbird]]''' was a [[automobile|car]] manufactured in the United States by the [[Ford Motor Company]].}}</blockquote>

However, there is no need to go overboard. There is no need to explain a common word like "car". Repetition is usually unnecessary, for example:
<blockquote>{{xt|[[Shoichi Yokoi]] was [[conscription|conscripted]] into the [[Imperial Japanese Army]] in 1941.}}</blockquote>

conveys enough information (although it is not a good first sentence). However, the following is not only [[Prolixity|verbose]] but [[Redundancy (linguistics)|redundant]]:
<blockquote>{{!xt|[[Shoichi Yokoi]] was a Japanese soldier in Japan who was [[conscription|drafted]] into the [[Imperial Japanese Army]] in 1941.}}</blockquote>