Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Words to watch
What matters is that articles should be well-written and be consistent with the core content policies – Neutral point of view, No original research, and Verifiability.
Words to watch: legendary, best, great, greatest, acclaimed, iconic, visionary, outstanding, leading, celebrated, popular, award-winning, landmark, cutting-edge, innovative, revolutionary, extraordinary, brilliant, hit, famous, renowned, remarkable, prestigious, world-class, respected, notable, virtuoso, honorable, awesome, unique, pioneering, phenomenal, prominent ...
Words such as these are often used without attribution to promote the subject of an article, while neither imparting nor plainly summarizing verifiable information.
Words to watch: cult, racist, perverted, sexist, homophobic, transphobic, misogynistic, sect, fundamentalist, heretic, extremist, denialist, terrorist, freedom fighter, bigot, myth, neo-Nazi, -gate, pseudo-, controversial ... Value-laden labels – such as calling an organization a cult, an individual a racist, sexist, terrorist, or freedom fighter, or a sexual practice a perversion – may express contentious opinion and are best avoided unless widely used by reliable sources to describe the subject, in which case use in-text attribution.
Make sure, as well, that reliable sources establish the existence of a controversy and that the term is not used to grant a fringe viewpoint undue weight.
A common form of weasel wording is through vague attribution, where a statement is dressed with authority, yet has no substantial basis.
Phrases such as those above present the appearance of support for statements but can deny the reader the opportunity to assess the source of the viewpoint.
Words to watch: supposed, apparent, purported, alleged, accused, so-called ... Also, scare-quoting: a Yale "report"; undue emphasis: "... a Baptist church" Words such as supposed, apparent, alleged, and purported can imply that a given point is inaccurate, although alleged and accused are appropriate when wrongdoing is asserted but undetermined, such as with people awaiting or undergoing a criminal trial; when these are used, ensure that the source of the accusation is clear.
Words to watch: notably, it should be noted, arguably, interestingly, essentially, utterly, actually, only, clearly, absolutely, of course, without a doubt, indeed, happily, sadly, tragically, aptly, fortunately, unfortunately, untimely ... Use of adverbs such as notably and interestingly, and phrases such as it should be noted, to highlight something as particularly significant or certain without attributing that opinion, should usually be avoided so as to maintain an impartial tone.
Words such as fundamentally, essentially, and basically can indicate particular interpretive viewpoints and thus should also be attributed in controversial cases.
Words to watch: reveal, point out, clarify, expose, explain, find, note, observe, insist, speculate, surmise, claim, assert, admit, confess, deny, confirm ...
For example, to write that a person noted, observed, clarified, explained, exposed, found, pointed out, showed, confirmed, or revealed something can imply objectivity or truthfulness, instead of simply conveying the fact that it was said.
To write that someone insisted, speculated, or surmised can suggest the degree of the person's carefulness, resoluteness, or access to evidence, even when such things are unverifiable.
To say that someone asserted or claimed something can call their statement's credibility into question, by emphasizing any potential contradiction or implying disregard for evidence.
Similarly, be judicious in using admit, confess, reveal, and deny, particularly for living persons, because these verbs can inappropriately imply culpability.
Words to watch: passed away, gave her life, eternal rest, make love, an issue with, collateral damage ...
Some words and phrases that are proper in many contexts also have euphemistic senses that should be avoided: civilian casualties should not be masked as collateral damage.
Words to watch: lion's share, tip of the iceberg, white elephant, gild the lily, take the plunge, ace up the sleeve, bird in the hand, twist of fate, at the end of the day ... Clichés and idioms should generally be avoided in favor of direct, literal expressions.
In general, if a literal reading of a phrase makes no sense given the context, the sentence needs rewording.
Some idioms are common only in certain parts of the world, and many readers are not native speakers of English; articles should not presume familiarity with particular phrases.
Words to watch: recently, lately, currently, today, presently, to date, X years ago, formerly, in the past, traditionally, this/last/next (year/month/winter/spring/summer/fall/autumn), yesterday, tomorrow, in the future, now, to this day, soon, since ... Absolute specifications of time are preferred to relative constructions using recently, currently, and so on, because the latter may go out of date.
When material in an article may become out of date, follow the Wikipedia:As of guideline, which allows information to be written in a less time-dependent way.
Words to watch: this country, here, there, somewhere, sometimes, often, occasionally, somehow ... As in the previous section, prefer specific statements to general ones.
Even in a stub article, a different arrangement with more details sounds more like an encyclopedia and less like an obituary: "Smith married Jack in 1957.
It is necessary for a reference work to distinguish carefully between an office (such as president of the United States) and an incumbent (such as Donald Trump).
Adding common prefixes or suffixes such as pre-, post-, non-, anti-, or -like to existing words to create new compounds can aid brevity, but make sure the resulting terms are not misleading or offensive, and that they do not lend undue weight to a point of view.
However, language that is vulgar, obscene, or profane should be used only if its omission would make an article less accurate or relevant, and if there is no non-obscene alternative.
