| |||||
Editing cheatsheet
|
Summary of policies and guidelines
| ||||
Find the page for your course
|
Choose a mentor
| ||||
Help with article assessment
|
Starting an article
| ||||
| |||||
Chat with us:
Ask a question on the Public Policy IRC channel or on the
regular help chat
|
— GorillaWarfare talk 18:55, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for inquiring as to my availability to support your Wikipedia efforts as a mentor. I will gladly assist in this capacity. I have some catching up to do but my initial observation is that you already have some experience or you are a fast learner. Perhaps both are true. Either way it seems you are progressing nicely. I will look closer at the edits you have made to date and comment if and where specifically indicated. I will also monitor your Wikipedia activities from here an provide guidance as appropriate. You are always welcome to contact me if you have any specific questions or concerns. I look forward to our future interactions and to the contributions I anticipate you will append. Cheers. My76 Strat 04:59, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
I have quickly reviewed the draft in your sandbox. There are some areas which we will improve in short order. Nothing glares at this point but there are some minor improvements which we can later make. For now, and most importantly, what do you intend to call this article? The title is an important consideration because this is what notability is measured against. And to be sure no article exist on the subject. Therefor taking things one step at a time, let's determine the title for this article. I'll await your response. Best. My76 Strat 00:38, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
By the way, in case you hadn't noticed, your account should be confirmed based on your contributions to date. This means you can edit Semi-protected articles and no longer will you be required to authenticate your contributions using CAPTCHA. Therefor, congratulations, and happy editing. My76 Strat 03:06, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
It would be fine moving the draft to article space as a live article. When it is there I will add it to the categories you stated and a few others as well. I will assess the article, and place a reader review box so readers can give feedback. I will also continue to monitor the article and assist if any situations arise. I do not anticipate any problems at all. Now when you are ready all you must do is login, go to the sandbox, from there choose the move option which drops down from the triangle next to the star beside history. When you click on move a special page will open for the move. where it says move page "to new title" enter the title for this article. United States Security Assistance to the Palestinian Authority. In the reason box just say something to the effect Moving sandbox draft to article space. Uncheck the box which says Move associated talk page. This will move the sandbox draft with all of its history to the new location. The talkpage will not move as long as you uncheck the box. I will be at the help channel if you need help and I will also be watching for the page to move, so just do it whenever you are ready. Don't worry that the article can be improved, it will be fine and you can always improve it.
Hi Kmac1986! I just wanted to say that your article looks wonderful and that if you feel you have time (doesn't have to be now), you should nominate your article for good article (GA) status. The article can still be improved, but the major work is finished, and I'm sure My76Strat can help you if you choose to pursue GA for the article. Cheers, / ƒETCH COMMS / 01:46, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
![]() | On 6 November 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article United States Security Assistance to the Palestinian Authority, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page ( here's how, quick check) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page. |
Cbl62 ( talk) 06:04, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
Hi Kim, a (late) congratulations on getting your article onto the Did You Know section on the Wikipedia front page! As you probably saw, the work you did on the U.S. Security Assistance to the Palestinian Authority article was
viewed by more than 700 people on November 6th! Great job, and keep it up!
Annie Lin (Campus Team Coordinator, Wikimedia Foundation) (
talk)
07:27, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
Hi there, Kmac1986; My76Strat asked me to respond to your question about GA-preperation. I can give you some tips and ideas, and I hope you won't be put off by this; it really is not as hard as it all sounds.
Just a note that I'm writing this with only the most cursory glance at your specific article, so mostly it is generic tips and advice. I honestly don't have the hours it'd take me to start examining that article in depth, and if I was able to do so, I might as well GA it myself...but I'm afraid real-life is interfering with my wiki activity, at the moment.
There are always two separate issues with articles; one being the comprehensive nature of the coverage of the subject, and the other being the more technical and artistic requirements - crossing the t's and dotting the i's, and making the prose sound excellent.
Because you'll end up doing all the proofing again and again, it is logical to do everything you can to ensure the article is comprehensive, without worrying overly about the style side of things until later.
To do that, I recommend getting as many opinions as you possibly can. Ask on the talk page of related project groups, and see if you can get lots of opinions about possible improvements; listen to the comments of everyone, no matter how insane they sound.
Also, take a good, hard look at featured articles which are on similar topics. Yes, FA is a step up from GA, but they will give you ideas. If a similar-topic FA has a section which your article lacks, then perhaps it is not currently 'broad in scope' - which is a GA requirement. It's easy to overlook obvious omissions when you get too involved with an article; use the FA's as a guideline template for ideas.
You might also get in touch with the major contributors of those FA's, and see if they can help you out.
The single most important aspect of any article is, of course, the references; all of the facts must have a solid, reliable source for a GA; anything lacking sources should be removed.
That is, of course, where the dichotomy occurs; for some articles, there simply are not enough RS out there for it to ever become a GA. If that's the case, you have to accept that. But from my very brief glance at this specific article, I don't think that will be a problem.
So - once you've double-triple-checked that the article is comprehensive, then is the time to worry about the style side of things.
References references references; make sure every single one has a date, author, ISBN number, or whatever is appropriate. In particular, make sure all of the dates are in exactly the same format throughout (whether the style is '1 April 2001', 'April 1st, 2001' or whatever).
Now - there are lots of pedantic things to check; are there dots on the end of captions if they're full sentences, are there any words abbreviated to "Can't" instead of "cannot", are numbers less than ten written out as words (four) not numbers (4), and more. Fortunately, there is an excellent 'cheat sheet' for this in User:Ealdgyth/GA_review_cheatsheet. If you work through all the points in that, a hell of a lot of these issues will be covered.
You also need to try and make the prose flow well; joining sentences, avoiding clumsy grammar, and so on. To be a good article, it should be a pleasure to read. Currently, it looks OK, but of course anything can be improved. There's some superb tips on this, in User:Tony1/How to improve your writing - definitely worth a bit of a work-out on those exercises of his.
Again, WP:FA is helpful. Read several, and you will get great ideas.
Finally, before submitting to GAR, I suggest you study the requirements. That is what the reviewer will be checking off, so make sure you cover the points. So, have a good read of the beautifully named WP:WIAGA.
Last thought: the point of GAR is not to get a GA; the purpose is to improve the article. So don't just try to tick the boxes; focus on writing great work, and GA will come naturally enough. The reviewer is on your side - we all want to make Wikipedia better, so it is a collaboration between you and the reviewer, simply to make the article shine.
Best of luck. I'm kinda on a wiki-break right now, but I will be available sporadically; feel free to leave notes on my talk. Chzz ► 03:36, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
| |||||
Editing cheatsheet
|
Summary of policies and guidelines
| ||||
Find the page for your course
|
Choose a mentor
| ||||
Help with article assessment
|
Starting an article
| ||||
| |||||
Chat with us:
Ask a question on the Public Policy IRC channel or on the
regular help chat
|
— GorillaWarfare talk 18:55, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for inquiring as to my availability to support your Wikipedia efforts as a mentor. I will gladly assist in this capacity. I have some catching up to do but my initial observation is that you already have some experience or you are a fast learner. Perhaps both are true. Either way it seems you are progressing nicely. I will look closer at the edits you have made to date and comment if and where specifically indicated. I will also monitor your Wikipedia activities from here an provide guidance as appropriate. You are always welcome to contact me if you have any specific questions or concerns. I look forward to our future interactions and to the contributions I anticipate you will append. Cheers. My76 Strat 04:59, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
I have quickly reviewed the draft in your sandbox. There are some areas which we will improve in short order. Nothing glares at this point but there are some minor improvements which we can later make. For now, and most importantly, what do you intend to call this article? The title is an important consideration because this is what notability is measured against. And to be sure no article exist on the subject. Therefor taking things one step at a time, let's determine the title for this article. I'll await your response. Best. My76 Strat 00:38, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
By the way, in case you hadn't noticed, your account should be confirmed based on your contributions to date. This means you can edit Semi-protected articles and no longer will you be required to authenticate your contributions using CAPTCHA. Therefor, congratulations, and happy editing. My76 Strat 03:06, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
It would be fine moving the draft to article space as a live article. When it is there I will add it to the categories you stated and a few others as well. I will assess the article, and place a reader review box so readers can give feedback. I will also continue to monitor the article and assist if any situations arise. I do not anticipate any problems at all. Now when you are ready all you must do is login, go to the sandbox, from there choose the move option which drops down from the triangle next to the star beside history. When you click on move a special page will open for the move. where it says move page "to new title" enter the title for this article. United States Security Assistance to the Palestinian Authority. In the reason box just say something to the effect Moving sandbox draft to article space. Uncheck the box which says Move associated talk page. This will move the sandbox draft with all of its history to the new location. The talkpage will not move as long as you uncheck the box. I will be at the help channel if you need help and I will also be watching for the page to move, so just do it whenever you are ready. Don't worry that the article can be improved, it will be fine and you can always improve it.
Hi Kmac1986! I just wanted to say that your article looks wonderful and that if you feel you have time (doesn't have to be now), you should nominate your article for good article (GA) status. The article can still be improved, but the major work is finished, and I'm sure My76Strat can help you if you choose to pursue GA for the article. Cheers, / ƒETCH COMMS / 01:46, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
![]() | On 6 November 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article United States Security Assistance to the Palestinian Authority, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page ( here's how, quick check) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page. |
Cbl62 ( talk) 06:04, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
Hi Kim, a (late) congratulations on getting your article onto the Did You Know section on the Wikipedia front page! As you probably saw, the work you did on the U.S. Security Assistance to the Palestinian Authority article was
viewed by more than 700 people on November 6th! Great job, and keep it up!
Annie Lin (Campus Team Coordinator, Wikimedia Foundation) (
talk)
07:27, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
Hi there, Kmac1986; My76Strat asked me to respond to your question about GA-preperation. I can give you some tips and ideas, and I hope you won't be put off by this; it really is not as hard as it all sounds.
Just a note that I'm writing this with only the most cursory glance at your specific article, so mostly it is generic tips and advice. I honestly don't have the hours it'd take me to start examining that article in depth, and if I was able to do so, I might as well GA it myself...but I'm afraid real-life is interfering with my wiki activity, at the moment.
There are always two separate issues with articles; one being the comprehensive nature of the coverage of the subject, and the other being the more technical and artistic requirements - crossing the t's and dotting the i's, and making the prose sound excellent.
Because you'll end up doing all the proofing again and again, it is logical to do everything you can to ensure the article is comprehensive, without worrying overly about the style side of things until later.
To do that, I recommend getting as many opinions as you possibly can. Ask on the talk page of related project groups, and see if you can get lots of opinions about possible improvements; listen to the comments of everyone, no matter how insane they sound.
Also, take a good, hard look at featured articles which are on similar topics. Yes, FA is a step up from GA, but they will give you ideas. If a similar-topic FA has a section which your article lacks, then perhaps it is not currently 'broad in scope' - which is a GA requirement. It's easy to overlook obvious omissions when you get too involved with an article; use the FA's as a guideline template for ideas.
You might also get in touch with the major contributors of those FA's, and see if they can help you out.
The single most important aspect of any article is, of course, the references; all of the facts must have a solid, reliable source for a GA; anything lacking sources should be removed.
That is, of course, where the dichotomy occurs; for some articles, there simply are not enough RS out there for it to ever become a GA. If that's the case, you have to accept that. But from my very brief glance at this specific article, I don't think that will be a problem.
So - once you've double-triple-checked that the article is comprehensive, then is the time to worry about the style side of things.
References references references; make sure every single one has a date, author, ISBN number, or whatever is appropriate. In particular, make sure all of the dates are in exactly the same format throughout (whether the style is '1 April 2001', 'April 1st, 2001' or whatever).
Now - there are lots of pedantic things to check; are there dots on the end of captions if they're full sentences, are there any words abbreviated to "Can't" instead of "cannot", are numbers less than ten written out as words (four) not numbers (4), and more. Fortunately, there is an excellent 'cheat sheet' for this in User:Ealdgyth/GA_review_cheatsheet. If you work through all the points in that, a hell of a lot of these issues will be covered.
You also need to try and make the prose flow well; joining sentences, avoiding clumsy grammar, and so on. To be a good article, it should be a pleasure to read. Currently, it looks OK, but of course anything can be improved. There's some superb tips on this, in User:Tony1/How to improve your writing - definitely worth a bit of a work-out on those exercises of his.
Again, WP:FA is helpful. Read several, and you will get great ideas.
Finally, before submitting to GAR, I suggest you study the requirements. That is what the reviewer will be checking off, so make sure you cover the points. So, have a good read of the beautifully named WP:WIAGA.
Last thought: the point of GAR is not to get a GA; the purpose is to improve the article. So don't just try to tick the boxes; focus on writing great work, and GA will come naturally enough. The reviewer is on your side - we all want to make Wikipedia better, so it is a collaboration between you and the reviewer, simply to make the article shine.
Best of luck. I'm kinda on a wiki-break right now, but I will be available sporadically; feel free to leave notes on my talk. Chzz ► 03:36, 18 November 2010 (UTC)