![]() | This recruitment has ended and is now archived. Please do not edit the contents of this page. |
Status: Ended Early
Date Started: 19:27, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
Date Ended: 01:07, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
Recruiter: Khazar2
Hi Aichik, thanks so much for offering to be a GA reviewer. In my opinion, the GA project, which brings articles to a reasonable level of consistent quality, is one of the most important initiatives on Wikipedia. Unfortunately, we often face a backlog because there's more people who want help with their work than want to help others with their work. Thanks for being willing to be one of the latter--it's a vital contribution to keeping things running.
As you'll find soon, GA reviewing is really quite easy, and this training is going to be a laidback affair. Mostly, I just want to point out some common mistakes (many of them mistakes I myself made in my first reviews, when this system didn't exist), and then turn you loose on a few reviews with me looking over your shoulder, and after that you'll be all set. With your copyediting background, I think you'll find this to be a breeze.
My take is that most bad GA reviews go wrong not by missing major errors, but by insisting on too many fixes not mandated by the criteria; this occasionally leads to a needlessly antagonistic review, and it drives people away from the process. It's important to understand that most GA nominators are not using it as prep for FA or for all-around fixes, and to say focused on the criteria at hand. For this reason, What the Good Article Criteria are Not is an extremely handy essay. If you haven't already, take a minute to read through it. You might also review some of the lesser-known MOS pages that are part of the GA criteria, especially WP:WTW.
Whenever you're ready, I've got a brief quiz below. Just in case that word gives you test anxiety, let me stress that the GA criteria are a somewhat interpretative affair, so not all of these have only one right answer. This is more to get you thinking about these issues, and to give us a chance to discuss them, outside of your first review. Just answer "y" for yes, "n" for no, or write more nuanced answers below as you see fit, and feel free to refer to WP:GA? and WP:GACN as you work. Once you've filled it out, you can click here to see my own answers with an explanation of each, and then we'll move on to the next step.
Thanks again for your interest in this! -- Khazar2 ( talk) 20:13, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
Can an article pass GA if the article...
![]() | This recruitment has ended and is now archived. Please do not edit the contents of this page. |
Status: Ended Early
Date Started: 19:27, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
Date Ended: 01:07, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
Recruiter: Khazar2
Hi Aichik, thanks so much for offering to be a GA reviewer. In my opinion, the GA project, which brings articles to a reasonable level of consistent quality, is one of the most important initiatives on Wikipedia. Unfortunately, we often face a backlog because there's more people who want help with their work than want to help others with their work. Thanks for being willing to be one of the latter--it's a vital contribution to keeping things running.
As you'll find soon, GA reviewing is really quite easy, and this training is going to be a laidback affair. Mostly, I just want to point out some common mistakes (many of them mistakes I myself made in my first reviews, when this system didn't exist), and then turn you loose on a few reviews with me looking over your shoulder, and after that you'll be all set. With your copyediting background, I think you'll find this to be a breeze.
My take is that most bad GA reviews go wrong not by missing major errors, but by insisting on too many fixes not mandated by the criteria; this occasionally leads to a needlessly antagonistic review, and it drives people away from the process. It's important to understand that most GA nominators are not using it as prep for FA or for all-around fixes, and to say focused on the criteria at hand. For this reason, What the Good Article Criteria are Not is an extremely handy essay. If you haven't already, take a minute to read through it. You might also review some of the lesser-known MOS pages that are part of the GA criteria, especially WP:WTW.
Whenever you're ready, I've got a brief quiz below. Just in case that word gives you test anxiety, let me stress that the GA criteria are a somewhat interpretative affair, so not all of these have only one right answer. This is more to get you thinking about these issues, and to give us a chance to discuss them, outside of your first review. Just answer "y" for yes, "n" for no, or write more nuanced answers below as you see fit, and feel free to refer to WP:GA? and WP:GACN as you work. Once you've filled it out, you can click here to see my own answers with an explanation of each, and then we'll move on to the next step.
Thanks again for your interest in this! -- Khazar2 ( talk) 20:13, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
Can an article pass GA if the article...