Yes, initially. As the article progressed through the process, it became apparent that “objective tone” is defined subjectively by senior editors. I would recommend that the editor who initially flags an article for tone be the one to sign off on revisions, just so there could be some consistency, maybe with the option to ask for a second editor’s opinion if the flagging editor can’t be satisfied. It’s not realistic to ask newbs to please everyone when senior editors can’t even reach agreement on whether “pioneer” is objective or puffery when used to describe a man who co-founded one of the earliest online communities.*
Initial review was very quick, but there was no obvious way to note I had revised to address the issues, and it took four months total. I got a lot of help while there was active discussion in the cafe, but once that was archived, no contact until the article was both rejected again and approved on Jan. 3.*
Although I have edited existing articles before creating this article, this was my first extensive interaction with senior editors and it was... interesting. Some editors were genuinely helpful and encouraging, and I appreciate that. * — Preceding unsigned comment added by Oldgirlpop ( talk • contribs) 17:26, 5 January 2023 (UTC)
Thank you! <3
The warning that Drafts might be deleted after 6 months, for instance, is very discouraging. 6 months seemed like a lot of time when I was younger, but with a job, house, and family to manage, plus multiple disabling health issues, managing which is like having a second job, I know that a month can go by and be eaten up by other priorities very quickly. I have read the user page of the user who did it - two days AFTER the article had already been reviewed by another admin and left in place - and understand the position of wanting Wikipedia to be encyclopedic. I want that as well. But it seems to me that moving an article so that the links to it switch to red links lowers the odds that the article will get discovered and improved by other editors. I had already shared links to the article myself, links which were also broken by that process. I had a plan for how I was going to improve the article, and I have followed through on that plan, but it took some time to return to the project. I had to work through my annoyance that this process has changed -- again -- and not in a way that I think will be encouraging to new and diverse editors. It is particularly frustrating, in that I was moved to create this article after reviewing how the subject's work was selected for a US postage stamp. I felt confident that the Duke University Art History Professor who consulted on that project a) knew which African American artists are notable and b) would probably appreciate BETTER coverage of those artists on Wikipedia. In other words, I was trying to correct for the tendency of all of us white English Wikipedia editors to overlook subjects that are currently under-represented. To be told that my subject was notable but the article was not good enough to sit in wiki space and be improved by the community was extra frustrating for this reason. Netmouse ( talk) 23:33, 21 February 2023 (UTC)
-- NFRAPC ( talk) 17:29, 26 April 2023 (UTC)
THANK YOU SO VERY MUCH for the process. The final is ever so much better than the initial draft. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Reward3 ( talk • contribs) 12:38, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
Pretty clear and simple instructions.
One day
I've submitted another article, Kreis Heilsberg, and it's been pending review for 3.5 months, AfC really ought to create review list by oldest submission. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Crainsaw ( talk • contribs) 19:31, 25 May 2023 (UTC)
No. So far everything is alright. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Waterfordas ( talk • contribs) 20:03, 10 June 2023 (UTC)
These are really only small communication points.
On the positive side, I found the source support fantastic in terms of the source box and it was lovely when other editors just went onto the article during the reviewing process and fine-tuned sources or just plain added in the correct one. I learnt alot in a short amount of time. Thank you.
I look forward to doing my next article, probably on a woman to try and redress some of the gender bias.
All the best of everything all of the time, Nikki :-) — Preceding unsigned comment added by The Nookster ( talk • contribs) 14:02, 20 June 2023 (UTC)
Okay I’m going to stop. I think I’m going on with myself a bit after the joyous news of having my first article published today.
Thanks for the learning opportunity.
Sincerely, The Nookster :-)
A smooth and uncomplicated experience to create the page which was great after I have completed so much research and work over the last 12 months. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wiltshire8 ( talk • contribs) 14:23, 25 July 2023 (UTC)
./.
I appreciate your work for WP's quality - thank you very much! Special thanks to Cl3phact0 for their intense effort in the final touches.
Alossola ( talk) 07:57, 10 September 2023 (UTC)
Tumnal ( talk) 19:56, 20 October 2023 (UTC)
-- Bdx ( talk) 10:04, 1 December 2023 (UTC)
At this stage of my knowledge of the process I do not yet have an analysis that I could share here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Traducteurwiki ( talk • contribs) 20:32, 3 December 2023 (UTC)
Horace William Heyman
Quite clear.
Very quickly. I drafted the article initially on Wednesday December 27, 2023 and it has been approved on January 8, 2024.
I had problemms understanding the difference between citations and links to other Wikipedia articles. Otherwise, the drafting process seemed OK.
In terms of content, I am a little puzzled about whether one should or should not relate a given Wikipedia article to other articles. Specifically:
Both my parents (in my view) happen to have come from interesting families: 1. On my father's side, his stepfather was a very important physicist and engineer with several articles and patents to his name, worthy of a Wikipedia article. To what extent should this be mentioned in this article? His uncle, Robert de Taube, is the subject of a book. Should this also be mentioned in the article? I have referenced both, but not really described them here. 2. My mother had two very illustrious relatives, her brother Albert Hague, a songwriter and actor, and her cousin Albert Hirschman, a famous economist, each with Wikipedia articles. I mentioned themm in the original draft but they were deleted. I have noted other Wikipedia articles, which make a point of the relationships of individuals with other Wikipedia entries.
I notice that various Wikipedia articles are quite discursive, which makes them more interesting, hance my comment.
I understand there is still some way to go on the learning curve with Wikipedia, hence my rather long response. Regard Ipandro
Anyway I got there! Thank you for your support! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Limanarui33.1982 ( talk • contribs) 10:14, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
Yes, initially. As the article progressed through the process, it became apparent that “objective tone” is defined subjectively by senior editors. I would recommend that the editor who initially flags an article for tone be the one to sign off on revisions, just so there could be some consistency, maybe with the option to ask for a second editor’s opinion if the flagging editor can’t be satisfied. It’s not realistic to ask newbs to please everyone when senior editors can’t even reach agreement on whether “pioneer” is objective or puffery when used to describe a man who co-founded one of the earliest online communities.*
Initial review was very quick, but there was no obvious way to note I had revised to address the issues, and it took four months total. I got a lot of help while there was active discussion in the cafe, but once that was archived, no contact until the article was both rejected again and approved on Jan. 3.*
Although I have edited existing articles before creating this article, this was my first extensive interaction with senior editors and it was... interesting. Some editors were genuinely helpful and encouraging, and I appreciate that. * — Preceding unsigned comment added by Oldgirlpop ( talk • contribs) 17:26, 5 January 2023 (UTC)
Thank you! <3
The warning that Drafts might be deleted after 6 months, for instance, is very discouraging. 6 months seemed like a lot of time when I was younger, but with a job, house, and family to manage, plus multiple disabling health issues, managing which is like having a second job, I know that a month can go by and be eaten up by other priorities very quickly. I have read the user page of the user who did it - two days AFTER the article had already been reviewed by another admin and left in place - and understand the position of wanting Wikipedia to be encyclopedic. I want that as well. But it seems to me that moving an article so that the links to it switch to red links lowers the odds that the article will get discovered and improved by other editors. I had already shared links to the article myself, links which were also broken by that process. I had a plan for how I was going to improve the article, and I have followed through on that plan, but it took some time to return to the project. I had to work through my annoyance that this process has changed -- again -- and not in a way that I think will be encouraging to new and diverse editors. It is particularly frustrating, in that I was moved to create this article after reviewing how the subject's work was selected for a US postage stamp. I felt confident that the Duke University Art History Professor who consulted on that project a) knew which African American artists are notable and b) would probably appreciate BETTER coverage of those artists on Wikipedia. In other words, I was trying to correct for the tendency of all of us white English Wikipedia editors to overlook subjects that are currently under-represented. To be told that my subject was notable but the article was not good enough to sit in wiki space and be improved by the community was extra frustrating for this reason. Netmouse ( talk) 23:33, 21 February 2023 (UTC)
-- NFRAPC ( talk) 17:29, 26 April 2023 (UTC)
THANK YOU SO VERY MUCH for the process. The final is ever so much better than the initial draft. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Reward3 ( talk • contribs) 12:38, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
Pretty clear and simple instructions.
One day
I've submitted another article, Kreis Heilsberg, and it's been pending review for 3.5 months, AfC really ought to create review list by oldest submission. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Crainsaw ( talk • contribs) 19:31, 25 May 2023 (UTC)
No. So far everything is alright. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Waterfordas ( talk • contribs) 20:03, 10 June 2023 (UTC)
These are really only small communication points.
On the positive side, I found the source support fantastic in terms of the source box and it was lovely when other editors just went onto the article during the reviewing process and fine-tuned sources or just plain added in the correct one. I learnt alot in a short amount of time. Thank you.
I look forward to doing my next article, probably on a woman to try and redress some of the gender bias.
All the best of everything all of the time, Nikki :-) — Preceding unsigned comment added by The Nookster ( talk • contribs) 14:02, 20 June 2023 (UTC)
Okay I’m going to stop. I think I’m going on with myself a bit after the joyous news of having my first article published today.
Thanks for the learning opportunity.
Sincerely, The Nookster :-)
A smooth and uncomplicated experience to create the page which was great after I have completed so much research and work over the last 12 months. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wiltshire8 ( talk • contribs) 14:23, 25 July 2023 (UTC)
./.
I appreciate your work for WP's quality - thank you very much! Special thanks to Cl3phact0 for their intense effort in the final touches.
Alossola ( talk) 07:57, 10 September 2023 (UTC)
Tumnal ( talk) 19:56, 20 October 2023 (UTC)
-- Bdx ( talk) 10:04, 1 December 2023 (UTC)
At this stage of my knowledge of the process I do not yet have an analysis that I could share here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Traducteurwiki ( talk • contribs) 20:32, 3 December 2023 (UTC)
Horace William Heyman
Quite clear.
Very quickly. I drafted the article initially on Wednesday December 27, 2023 and it has been approved on January 8, 2024.
I had problemms understanding the difference between citations and links to other Wikipedia articles. Otherwise, the drafting process seemed OK.
In terms of content, I am a little puzzled about whether one should or should not relate a given Wikipedia article to other articles. Specifically:
Both my parents (in my view) happen to have come from interesting families: 1. On my father's side, his stepfather was a very important physicist and engineer with several articles and patents to his name, worthy of a Wikipedia article. To what extent should this be mentioned in this article? His uncle, Robert de Taube, is the subject of a book. Should this also be mentioned in the article? I have referenced both, but not really described them here. 2. My mother had two very illustrious relatives, her brother Albert Hague, a songwriter and actor, and her cousin Albert Hirschman, a famous economist, each with Wikipedia articles. I mentioned themm in the original draft but they were deleted. I have noted other Wikipedia articles, which make a point of the relationships of individuals with other Wikipedia entries.
I notice that various Wikipedia articles are quite discursive, which makes them more interesting, hance my comment.
I understand there is still some way to go on the learning curve with Wikipedia, hence my rather long response. Regard Ipandro
Anyway I got there! Thank you for your support! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Limanarui33.1982 ( talk • contribs) 10:14, 12 April 2024 (UTC)