 | This is an
essay. It contains the advice or opinions of one or more Wikipedia contributors. This page is not an encyclopedia article, nor is it one of
Wikipedia's policies or guidelines, as it has not been
thoroughly vetted by the community. Some essays represent widespread norms; others only represent minority viewpoints. |
In early 2006, I began working on the Kansas Turnpike article. After a year's off-and-on work, it became an FA. I'm going to follow the same process as I did on that article, this time working on the Chickasaw Turnpike article. This time around I'm going to document the process so that other users might benefit from seeing how this seemingly insurmountable task can be achieved.
I like working on turnpike articles for FA because they're easier to search for in Google (fewer alternate names), and generally have more things to say about them (you can go into detail about the tolling system, they usually have more service areas, and so forth). This particular turnpike has something else unusual about it - it only has two lanes. The Chickasaw Turnpike article has one other thing in common with the Kansas Turnpike article when I began editing it: they were both very short stubs, so it's basically like starting from scratch. When I began working on the Chickasaw Turnpike article, it looked like this: [1]. For comparison, [2] shows Kansas Turnpike when I began working on it.
I would like to point out that this approach may not work for everyone. This is the process I like to use; other users probably have their own methods. Also, this process isn't limited just to road articles. You can theoretically use it for any article. Also, note that a few images may be missing because of fair-use guidelines. While working, make sure you examine everything for compliance with core policies, like POV and reliable sources.
Step 1: Collecting sources
| Needed |
| /Step 1 |
The first steps to making a great article begin in your userspace. If your target article already exists, copy it to your sandbox. If not, you get to start fresh. Decide what headings you want, and put them in. Begin collecting information from reliable sources. Use any books you own on the subject first. Then move on to what's available through a simple Google search. As you collect information, break it down into easily-citable bullet points. (If you are working from a pre-existing article, begin by breaking the existing article down into bullets.) Put the information in the relevant sections. Add proper references as you go. Work on one source at a time, assimilating as much information as you can get from each one. If some information is duplicated, give a cite for each reference that corroborates the information.
As you're doing this, be careful not to copy directly from the source. If you do, you will be tempted to simply re-incorporate that into the final article, raising copyright concerns. To promote originality, just note the core of the information that you need. Abbreviate if you want; this is for your own personal use.
After you think you've gotten everything you can off the Internet and your personal books, it's time to move on to the library. If at all possible, try to visit a university library. Use the online catalog there to find books related to the subject. While you're there, take the opportunity to search JSTOR, Academic Search Premier, and other databases. These databases are only available at participating libraries, and not elsewhere, so to minimize repeat trips, email copies of sources to yourself, or download them to a flash drive. Check out the books that you need and begin reading, adding information as you go. As you can imagine, this is probably the most labor-intensive part of the process. It can take several weeks, depending on the article and what sources you have available. Once you think you've gotten everything on the subject, it's time to actually write the article.
Unfortunately for the Chickasaw Turnpike, no books exist for the subject. Many sources on the Internet aren't reliable, but I was able to find some news articles and press releases from the OTA. Apparently the whole thing was shut down in 2006 for construction, causing traffic tie-ups in Sulphur. Good to know!
Step 2: Writing the article
| B |
| /Step 2 |
Next up is the fun part. You need to take your list of bullet points and connect them together to form a true article. If there's anything you couldn't find a cite for, now's the time to kick it to the curb. (Or at least, post it on the talk page so if anyone else knows of a source, they can provide it.) Try to follow the MOS as close as you can now; it'll pay dividends in the future. Use a browser such as Mozilla Firefox that provides spell-check to avoid embarrassing typos.
You should do the initial connecting in your sandbox. When you've integrated all your bullet points, it's time to copy it out into mainspace. After you've sent the overhauled and expanded (or brand new) article out into the world, let it be for a few days. You can probably use a break from the subject matter anyway. Your new article will hopefully catch the eye of some other people who are interested in the subject and they'll begin to collaborate with you in further expansion. You can also alert some relevant WikiProjects about the article and your hopes for it. Get the article tagged and assessed using the Version 1.0 classes; your new article should hopefully be B-Class.
Now is also the time to begin thinking about images. Can you get some? You may have to do some legwork and get some yourself; for the Chickasaw Turnpike article, I went to the actual turnpike and drove the length of it, taking about 40 pictures. This also helped me discover some things about the turnpike that weren't covered in the sources. I found that part of the turnpike had a third lane, and found that there were some at-grade intersections near the east end.
Step 3: GA
GA
|
| 198808862 |
Once you have all the major highlights in place, check your article against the good article criteria. If you believe it meets them, you should take the article to Wikipedia:Good article nominations. GAN will be the first true test of your article. References will be checked for conformance with WP:RS, prose will be inspected, and image licensing will be scrutinized. At time of writing GAN is suffering from a massive backlog of articles needing review, so it is a very slow process. Some articles may sit in the queue for a month or more before they're reviewed. You may want to use this time to take a break from the article so that you don't grow tired of the subject and/or get stressed out. However, you don't have to neglect the article. If you feel you have to do something, check everything against the Manual of Style to ensure everything is done right.
The GAN process will give one of three results. You're hoping for a pass. You may get a hold, in which case you'll have a week or so to correct minor issues with the article; after correcting the issues, you'll get a pass. Or you may fail entirely, which is frustrating because (unless it was failed improperly) you have to go back to square one, fix whatever issues are stated in the review (which may take considerable work, especially if it's a referencing issue), and then submit it again and wait for another month.
The Chickasaw Turnpike article was listed as a GA nominee on March 1, 2008. It remained in the queue until March 27, when it was promoted to GA status.
Step 4: Peer review and polishing
A
|
| 205878453 |
GA is a fine first test of your article's quality. Now, however, it's a good idea to invite many more eyes to look over your article. You need others to catch as many issues as possible now, so that at FA your article will be able to breeze right through. Therefore, now is the time when your article should be mostly content-complete, and from here on out you'll be merely polishing the prose and formatting.
Your next destination will be A-Class. Many WikiProjects conduct a formalized FA-like process for awarding the A-Class rating, so check with your local WikiProject to see if they have this sort of process. This will provide a preview of a FAC nomination and will catch a lot of the picky errors that FA reviewers might otherwise raise.
Another venue for getting opinions on your article is peer review. This process draws attention to your article and provides a forum for other users to make suggestions and comments about your article.
The Chickasaw Turnpike article successfully passed through WikiProject U.S. Roads' A-Class Review. I then brought it over to full Wikipedia peer review to get a few more suggestions before taking it to the top.
Step 5: Take it to FA
FA
|
| 211394749 |
Finally, the step which you've been working towards this whole time... you've reached the top, the primetime, the big house, the limelight... WP:FAC. Before actually submitting your article to FAC, make sure you look through WP:WIAFA first to ensure your candidacy is solid.
You might not know what to expect when preparing for your first FAC. This is an entirely healthy perspective to maintain through your second, third, and fourth FACs too. Just about every FAC will raise some odd issue you aren't prepared for, whether it's an obscure passage of the MOS that you're out of compliance with or some subjective criticism of some image in your article. Be prepared to get some unreasonable suggestions, as well, and never be afraid to turn someone down if you feel that fixing their issue would make the article worse. The worst they can do is oppose, and if they truly are off-base, then you'll probably get a few other people arguing against the other user in favor of your article. Most other issues should be relatively easy and trivial to fix, however; major issues should have been caught at one of the lower levels. (That's why we didn't just breeze through and take the article to FAC first!)
About the widest-spread comment on the Chickasaw Turnpike's FAC was that it was too short. However, I explained that the road was only 20 miles long, and that I felt it met the comprehensiveness criteria, and most of the editors agreed. There was also one contributor who took issue with the map in the article, but general consensus seemed to be against that user and in favor of the article as it stood. On May 9, 2008, the candidacy expired and Chickasaw Turnpike was officially promoted to FA status!
| This is an
essay. It contains the advice or opinions of one or more Wikipedia contributors. This page is not an encyclopedia article, nor is it one of
Wikipedia's policies or guidelines, as it has not been
thoroughly vetted by the community. Some essays represent widespread norms; others only represent minority viewpoints. |
In early 2006, I began working on the Kansas Turnpike article. After a year's off-and-on work, it became an FA. I'm going to follow the same process as I did on that article, this time working on the Chickasaw Turnpike article. This time around I'm going to document the process so that other users might benefit from seeing how this seemingly insurmountable task can be achieved.
I like working on turnpike articles for FA because they're easier to search for in Google (fewer alternate names), and generally have more things to say about them (you can go into detail about the tolling system, they usually have more service areas, and so forth). This particular turnpike has something else unusual about it - it only has two lanes. The Chickasaw Turnpike article has one other thing in common with the Kansas Turnpike article when I began editing it: they were both very short stubs, so it's basically like starting from scratch. When I began working on the Chickasaw Turnpike article, it looked like this: [1]. For comparison, [2] shows Kansas Turnpike when I began working on it.
I would like to point out that this approach may not work for everyone. This is the process I like to use; other users probably have their own methods. Also, this process isn't limited just to road articles. You can theoretically use it for any article. Also, note that a few images may be missing because of fair-use guidelines. While working, make sure you examine everything for compliance with core policies, like POV and reliable sources.
Step 1: Collecting sources
| Needed |
| /Step 1 |
The first steps to making a great article begin in your userspace. If your target article already exists, copy it to your sandbox. If not, you get to start fresh. Decide what headings you want, and put them in. Begin collecting information from reliable sources. Use any books you own on the subject first. Then move on to what's available through a simple Google search. As you collect information, break it down into easily-citable bullet points. (If you are working from a pre-existing article, begin by breaking the existing article down into bullets.) Put the information in the relevant sections. Add proper references as you go. Work on one source at a time, assimilating as much information as you can get from each one. If some information is duplicated, give a cite for each reference that corroborates the information.
As you're doing this, be careful not to copy directly from the source. If you do, you will be tempted to simply re-incorporate that into the final article, raising copyright concerns. To promote originality, just note the core of the information that you need. Abbreviate if you want; this is for your own personal use.
After you think you've gotten everything you can off the Internet and your personal books, it's time to move on to the library. If at all possible, try to visit a university library. Use the online catalog there to find books related to the subject. While you're there, take the opportunity to search JSTOR, Academic Search Premier, and other databases. These databases are only available at participating libraries, and not elsewhere, so to minimize repeat trips, email copies of sources to yourself, or download them to a flash drive. Check out the books that you need and begin reading, adding information as you go. As you can imagine, this is probably the most labor-intensive part of the process. It can take several weeks, depending on the article and what sources you have available. Once you think you've gotten everything on the subject, it's time to actually write the article.
Unfortunately for the Chickasaw Turnpike, no books exist for the subject. Many sources on the Internet aren't reliable, but I was able to find some news articles and press releases from the OTA. Apparently the whole thing was shut down in 2006 for construction, causing traffic tie-ups in Sulphur. Good to know!
Step 2: Writing the article
| B |
| /Step 2 |
Next up is the fun part. You need to take your list of bullet points and connect them together to form a true article. If there's anything you couldn't find a cite for, now's the time to kick it to the curb. (Or at least, post it on the talk page so if anyone else knows of a source, they can provide it.) Try to follow the MOS as close as you can now; it'll pay dividends in the future. Use a browser such as Mozilla Firefox that provides spell-check to avoid embarrassing typos.
You should do the initial connecting in your sandbox. When you've integrated all your bullet points, it's time to copy it out into mainspace. After you've sent the overhauled and expanded (or brand new) article out into the world, let it be for a few days. You can probably use a break from the subject matter anyway. Your new article will hopefully catch the eye of some other people who are interested in the subject and they'll begin to collaborate with you in further expansion. You can also alert some relevant WikiProjects about the article and your hopes for it. Get the article tagged and assessed using the Version 1.0 classes; your new article should hopefully be B-Class.
Now is also the time to begin thinking about images. Can you get some? You may have to do some legwork and get some yourself; for the Chickasaw Turnpike article, I went to the actual turnpike and drove the length of it, taking about 40 pictures. This also helped me discover some things about the turnpike that weren't covered in the sources. I found that part of the turnpike had a third lane, and found that there were some at-grade intersections near the east end.
Step 3: GA
|
GA
|
| 198808862 |
Once you have all the major highlights in place, check your article against the good article criteria. If you believe it meets them, you should take the article to Wikipedia:Good article nominations. GAN will be the first true test of your article. References will be checked for conformance with WP:RS, prose will be inspected, and image licensing will be scrutinized. At time of writing GAN is suffering from a massive backlog of articles needing review, so it is a very slow process. Some articles may sit in the queue for a month or more before they're reviewed. You may want to use this time to take a break from the article so that you don't grow tired of the subject and/or get stressed out. However, you don't have to neglect the article. If you feel you have to do something, check everything against the Manual of Style to ensure everything is done right.
The GAN process will give one of three results. You're hoping for a pass. You may get a hold, in which case you'll have a week or so to correct minor issues with the article; after correcting the issues, you'll get a pass. Or you may fail entirely, which is frustrating because (unless it was failed improperly) you have to go back to square one, fix whatever issues are stated in the review (which may take considerable work, especially if it's a referencing issue), and then submit it again and wait for another month.
The Chickasaw Turnpike article was listed as a GA nominee on March 1, 2008. It remained in the queue until March 27, when it was promoted to GA status.
Step 4: Peer review and polishing
|
A
|
| 205878453 |
GA is a fine first test of your article's quality. Now, however, it's a good idea to invite many more eyes to look over your article. You need others to catch as many issues as possible now, so that at FA your article will be able to breeze right through. Therefore, now is the time when your article should be mostly content-complete, and from here on out you'll be merely polishing the prose and formatting.
Your next destination will be A-Class. Many WikiProjects conduct a formalized FA-like process for awarding the A-Class rating, so check with your local WikiProject to see if they have this sort of process. This will provide a preview of a FAC nomination and will catch a lot of the picky errors that FA reviewers might otherwise raise.
Another venue for getting opinions on your article is peer review. This process draws attention to your article and provides a forum for other users to make suggestions and comments about your article.
The Chickasaw Turnpike article successfully passed through WikiProject U.S. Roads' A-Class Review. I then brought it over to full Wikipedia peer review to get a few more suggestions before taking it to the top.
Step 5: Take it to FA
|
FA
|
| 211394749 |
Finally, the step which you've been working towards this whole time... you've reached the top, the primetime, the big house, the limelight... WP:FAC. Before actually submitting your article to FAC, make sure you look through WP:WIAFA first to ensure your candidacy is solid.
You might not know what to expect when preparing for your first FAC. This is an entirely healthy perspective to maintain through your second, third, and fourth FACs too. Just about every FAC will raise some odd issue you aren't prepared for, whether it's an obscure passage of the MOS that you're out of compliance with or some subjective criticism of some image in your article. Be prepared to get some unreasonable suggestions, as well, and never be afraid to turn someone down if you feel that fixing their issue would make the article worse. The worst they can do is oppose, and if they truly are off-base, then you'll probably get a few other people arguing against the other user in favor of your article. Most other issues should be relatively easy and trivial to fix, however; major issues should have been caught at one of the lower levels. (That's why we didn't just breeze through and take the article to FAC first!)
About the widest-spread comment on the Chickasaw Turnpike's FAC was that it was too short. However, I explained that the road was only 20 miles long, and that I felt it met the comprehensiveness criteria, and most of the editors agreed. There was also one contributor who took issue with the map in the article, but general consensus seemed to be against that user and in favor of the article as it stood. On May 9, 2008, the candidacy expired and Chickasaw Turnpike was officially promoted to FA status!