![]() | This recruitment has ended and is now archived. Please do not edit the contents of this page. |
Status: Abandoned
Date Started: 13 July 2013
Date Ended: May 7, 2014
Recruiter: Gilderien
Hi Jackc143, I'm Gilderien. To get started, are there any particular types of articles you are interested in reviewing or writing or whatever else? Do you have any questions about the review process before we start? The key page for GA reviews is this one, which you should read and understand. This essay is also quite useful. -- Gilderien Chat| List of good deeds 21:21, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
Ok, so I'm going to give you a short quiz. If you get 80% or higher, I shall model a review for you. Please answer in the spaces provided.-- Gilderien Chat| List of good deeds 23:43, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
Q1: Why will Paris, my latest GA, cease to be a Good Article?
Q2: Can I pass an article if there are links which don't work?
Q3: If I want to include a quote from a well-known author about the place I'm writing about, is it acceptable for me to add the book (perhaps in a {{ Cite book}} template) to a bibliography section in the references?
Q4: When might an article not be "stable"?
Q5: What is the perfect length for a GA?
Q6: If you expanded, say, Granite Peak (Montana) by 5xs, could you also nominate it for GA?
Q7: Zennor Head is a GA. Can I add a PD-UK photo of a tin mine taken in 1926 to the article?
Q8: Does it matter if the article mixes US and British spellings?
Q9: Could I create a Good Article on the 2012 Olympic Games? What about the 2014 Winter Olympics?
Q10: Can one write a Good Article if there are no english language sources available?
Q11: How could you determine whether, say, General Relativity is cited adequately?
Q12: Is an article "stable" if it keeps on getting vandalised?
Q13: What about if it was the subject of current litigation to the WMF?
Q14: Does it matter if the subject is non-notable when reviewing?
Q15: If there are multiple different viewpoints on something, should we present them all as equally valid, or prioritise some over others?
Q16: Can I have a sentence ending [12][3][2][7][6] or should it be [2][3][6][7][12]?
Q17: Can you accept sources "in good faith"? Why/Why not?
Q18: Can I use any image, as long as it is either CC-BY-SA (or similar) or is already on WP with a non-free fair use rationale?
Q19: Do I require images?
Q20: I have just created a new article, List of animals with fictional diplomas. What do I have to do to make sure it meets the GA criteria?
Q21: If there are no images in an article you are working on, but you find a Creative Commons licensed CC-BY-NC image, should you upload it and include it to help it pass GA?
By my reckoning, that gives you 37/42, or 88%! Congratulations.
Now the next stage involves me modelling a GA review, and I'll transclude it here so you can ask questions about what I am doing. I was just going to pick one and begin reviewing it, but I think it would be more interesting and relevant if you were to pick it, so name an article currently listed on
WP:GAN and I shall ask the nominator if they are ok with it being reviewed like this
.--
Gilderien
Chat|
List of good deeds
22:07, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
If it's ok with you and the nom I could try 2012 Christmas tornado outbreak. The refs are all online, which is good since my local library's in an office block at the moment... Jackc143 ( talk) 17:00, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: Gilderien ( talk · contribs) 13:37, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
I first read through the article and see if there is anything that jumps out at me, and note it down to be fixed. I also check to see if any references are dead. For example:
-- Gilderien Chat| List of good deeds 13:44, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
Since over a week has passed, and most of these issues have not been addressed, and the nominator has been active elsewhere, I am failing this review. --
Gilderien
Chat|
Contributions
05:16, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
Unfortunately I have had to fail this nomination. Please select another GAN that you would like me to review :) Sorry about this...--
Gilderien
Chat|
List of good deeds
05:21, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: LT910001 ( talk · contribs) 01:19, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
If there are no objections, I'll take this review. I'll note at the outset I've had no role in editing or creating this article. I welcome other editors at any state to contribute to this review. I will spend a day familiarising myself with the article and then provide an assessment. Kind regards, LT910001 ( talk) 01:19, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
Rate | Attribute | Review Comment |
---|---|---|
1. Well-written: | ||
![]() |
1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct. | Narrative is well-presented and very readable. |
![]() |
1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation. | Yes |
2. Verifiable with no original research: | ||
![]() |
2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline. | Yes |
![]() |
2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose). | Yes |
![]() |
2c. it contains no original research. | Yes |
3. Broad in its coverage: | ||
![]() |
3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic. | Yes |
![]() |
3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style). | Yes |
![]() |
4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each. | No concerns |
![]() |
5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute. | Yes |
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio: | ||
![]() |
6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content. | Yes |
![]() |
6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions. | |
![]() |
7. Overall assessment. | All issues have been addressed; passed |
Hello FoxyOrange, I apologise for the two-month delay between nomination and review for your article. I find this article to be of high quality, with verifiable sources that are reliably used.
This that need to be fixed before the article is promoted:
Some small other comments:
I again apologise for the long delay, and await your comment. LT910001 ( talk) 09:20, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
Dear LT910001, thanks for your review. I won't be able to work on the article before Friday, so here are just a few quick remarks.
Again, thanks for the work you put on the review. Best regards-- FoxyOrange ( talk) 10:37, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
Dear LT910001, I've just edited the article in accordance with your suggestions (at least, I hope so): It now features a rewritten, longer lead section (including a different approach to the "Palestinian violence" problem), and a more consistent naming of the different aircraft. How do you like it?
Also, I would like to apologise for that unprofessional comment about feeling "silly when adding a source just for the sake of having one". On the contrary, the search for a suitable source turned out to be quite beneficial, as it let me take another look at the other references, extracting some more content to be used in the article. Best regards-- FoxyOrange ( talk) 13:37, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
Overall the article is much better and has improved in spades. The timeline is now very clear. I have a few small issues, particularly pertaining to NPOV, that remain, but the article is now much more readable. I have made changes to the GA table above to reflect this. LT910001 ( talk) 07:22, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
With the changes above being made, I find this article to match the GARC in being well-written and broad, neutral and well-sourced, and without any outstanding issues. I have updated the table above and will make the required changes to promote to GA status shortly. Well done and I wish you well on your wiki-travels. LT910001 ( talk) 11:52, 19 October 2013 (UTC)
Sorry to have kept you waiting, but I believe you are ready to review a GA on your own. If you wish to pick an outstanding article, and translude the review here, I will provide guidance and comments.--
Gilderien
Chat|
List of good deeds
01:05, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: RainCity471 ( talk · contribs) 22:14, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
Ok, so over the next few days I'll review (hopefully). I can't do a lot of editing during weekdays (too much homework) and will be away from the 16th to the 21st of November.
The article does not have any cleanup tags, and in my opinion looks reasonable in relation to the criteria. It looks like a lot of work has been put into it, and I look forward to reviewing it. RainCity471( whack!) 22:14, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
Rate | Attribute | Review Comment |
---|---|---|
1. Well-written: | ||
![]() |
1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct. | |
![]() |
1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation. | Fairly confident on this, though I will check soon. (The fiction and list incorporation guidelines do not apply to this article.) |
2. Verifiable with no original research: | ||
![]() |
2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline. | The references layout look fine, although I have not yet done a detailed check on sources as required. |
![]() |
2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose). | There are many inline citations, although I will do a detailed check soon. I would recommend archiving the web urls with
WebCite (go to
http://www.webcitation.org/archive?url=(WEB_ADDRESS)&email=(EMAIL_ADDRESS) , replacing (WEB_ADDRESS) with the website address and (EMAIL_ADRESS) with a valid email). As the urls are not bare, this isn't required for GA but it would help with verifiability in the future.
|
![]() |
2c. it contains no original research. | Nothing that sticks out, although I will be more confident after I've completed reference verification. |
3. Broad in its coverage: | ||
![]() |
3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic. | The largest section is the North America history, and the "Current events" section seems to be pretty short compared to it. I do have experience in classical music but I'm not familiar with singing, so feel free to correct me if I'm wrong. I'll ask for a second opinion when the rest of the review's mostly done. |
![]() |
3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style). | Over-detail does not appear to be a problem. |
![]() |
4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each. | Looks ok, |
![]() |
5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute. | Has settled down after expansion and does not appear to have had edit wars. |
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio: | ||
![]() |
6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content. | All fine. In my opinion, maybe the Liederkranz Quartettverein image could go to the Current events section to ease the big block of text after the start of the article, but this is not required for GA. |
![]() |
6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions. | Good. The archive photo ( File:Bundesarchiv Bild 102-06264, Wien, Umzug zum Sängerbund-Fest.jpg) seems to have a caption/id numbers at the bottom of it; I might crop that off and put it on the file page instead. This isn't required for GA either. |
![]() |
7. Overall assessment. |
Here are some phrases I think could be put a bit better:
Saengerfest
, it says sängerfest
in the actual content. I believe this isn't required for GA, but it probably would be worth sorting out. Should the article be moved or the sängerfests changed to saengerfest?
RainCity471 (
whack!)
20:05, 6 November 2013 (UTC)either you have reached a page unavailable for viewing, or you have reached your viewing limit for this book
".There as a (November 11th) request for someone to finish this review. It looks like nobody has volunteered. I'd be happy to do it and will. I'll wait a day or 2 for comments in case I have misunderstood the situation. North8000 ( talk) 11:49, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
I'm afraid I'm on wikibreak now/immenently. Since I'm not sure if you're free at the moment, I've dropped a note at WT:GAN asking for someone to complete the review. Thanks, RainCity471 ( whack!) 23:23, 9 November 2013 (UTC)
![]() | This recruitment has ended and is now archived. Please do not edit the contents of this page. |
Status: Abandoned
Date Started: 13 July 2013
Date Ended: May 7, 2014
Recruiter: Gilderien
Hi Jackc143, I'm Gilderien. To get started, are there any particular types of articles you are interested in reviewing or writing or whatever else? Do you have any questions about the review process before we start? The key page for GA reviews is this one, which you should read and understand. This essay is also quite useful. -- Gilderien Chat| List of good deeds 21:21, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
Ok, so I'm going to give you a short quiz. If you get 80% or higher, I shall model a review for you. Please answer in the spaces provided.-- Gilderien Chat| List of good deeds 23:43, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
Q1: Why will Paris, my latest GA, cease to be a Good Article?
Q2: Can I pass an article if there are links which don't work?
Q3: If I want to include a quote from a well-known author about the place I'm writing about, is it acceptable for me to add the book (perhaps in a {{ Cite book}} template) to a bibliography section in the references?
Q4: When might an article not be "stable"?
Q5: What is the perfect length for a GA?
Q6: If you expanded, say, Granite Peak (Montana) by 5xs, could you also nominate it for GA?
Q7: Zennor Head is a GA. Can I add a PD-UK photo of a tin mine taken in 1926 to the article?
Q8: Does it matter if the article mixes US and British spellings?
Q9: Could I create a Good Article on the 2012 Olympic Games? What about the 2014 Winter Olympics?
Q10: Can one write a Good Article if there are no english language sources available?
Q11: How could you determine whether, say, General Relativity is cited adequately?
Q12: Is an article "stable" if it keeps on getting vandalised?
Q13: What about if it was the subject of current litigation to the WMF?
Q14: Does it matter if the subject is non-notable when reviewing?
Q15: If there are multiple different viewpoints on something, should we present them all as equally valid, or prioritise some over others?
Q16: Can I have a sentence ending [12][3][2][7][6] or should it be [2][3][6][7][12]?
Q17: Can you accept sources "in good faith"? Why/Why not?
Q18: Can I use any image, as long as it is either CC-BY-SA (or similar) or is already on WP with a non-free fair use rationale?
Q19: Do I require images?
Q20: I have just created a new article, List of animals with fictional diplomas. What do I have to do to make sure it meets the GA criteria?
Q21: If there are no images in an article you are working on, but you find a Creative Commons licensed CC-BY-NC image, should you upload it and include it to help it pass GA?
By my reckoning, that gives you 37/42, or 88%! Congratulations.
Now the next stage involves me modelling a GA review, and I'll transclude it here so you can ask questions about what I am doing. I was just going to pick one and begin reviewing it, but I think it would be more interesting and relevant if you were to pick it, so name an article currently listed on
WP:GAN and I shall ask the nominator if they are ok with it being reviewed like this
.--
Gilderien
Chat|
List of good deeds
22:07, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
If it's ok with you and the nom I could try 2012 Christmas tornado outbreak. The refs are all online, which is good since my local library's in an office block at the moment... Jackc143 ( talk) 17:00, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: Gilderien ( talk · contribs) 13:37, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
I first read through the article and see if there is anything that jumps out at me, and note it down to be fixed. I also check to see if any references are dead. For example:
-- Gilderien Chat| List of good deeds 13:44, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
Since over a week has passed, and most of these issues have not been addressed, and the nominator has been active elsewhere, I am failing this review. --
Gilderien
Chat|
Contributions
05:16, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
Unfortunately I have had to fail this nomination. Please select another GAN that you would like me to review :) Sorry about this...--
Gilderien
Chat|
List of good deeds
05:21, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: LT910001 ( talk · contribs) 01:19, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
If there are no objections, I'll take this review. I'll note at the outset I've had no role in editing or creating this article. I welcome other editors at any state to contribute to this review. I will spend a day familiarising myself with the article and then provide an assessment. Kind regards, LT910001 ( talk) 01:19, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
Rate | Attribute | Review Comment |
---|---|---|
1. Well-written: | ||
![]() |
1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct. | Narrative is well-presented and very readable. |
![]() |
1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation. | Yes |
2. Verifiable with no original research: | ||
![]() |
2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline. | Yes |
![]() |
2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose). | Yes |
![]() |
2c. it contains no original research. | Yes |
3. Broad in its coverage: | ||
![]() |
3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic. | Yes |
![]() |
3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style). | Yes |
![]() |
4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each. | No concerns |
![]() |
5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute. | Yes |
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio: | ||
![]() |
6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content. | Yes |
![]() |
6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions. | |
![]() |
7. Overall assessment. | All issues have been addressed; passed |
Hello FoxyOrange, I apologise for the two-month delay between nomination and review for your article. I find this article to be of high quality, with verifiable sources that are reliably used.
This that need to be fixed before the article is promoted:
Some small other comments:
I again apologise for the long delay, and await your comment. LT910001 ( talk) 09:20, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
Dear LT910001, thanks for your review. I won't be able to work on the article before Friday, so here are just a few quick remarks.
Again, thanks for the work you put on the review. Best regards-- FoxyOrange ( talk) 10:37, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
Dear LT910001, I've just edited the article in accordance with your suggestions (at least, I hope so): It now features a rewritten, longer lead section (including a different approach to the "Palestinian violence" problem), and a more consistent naming of the different aircraft. How do you like it?
Also, I would like to apologise for that unprofessional comment about feeling "silly when adding a source just for the sake of having one". On the contrary, the search for a suitable source turned out to be quite beneficial, as it let me take another look at the other references, extracting some more content to be used in the article. Best regards-- FoxyOrange ( talk) 13:37, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
Overall the article is much better and has improved in spades. The timeline is now very clear. I have a few small issues, particularly pertaining to NPOV, that remain, but the article is now much more readable. I have made changes to the GA table above to reflect this. LT910001 ( talk) 07:22, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
With the changes above being made, I find this article to match the GARC in being well-written and broad, neutral and well-sourced, and without any outstanding issues. I have updated the table above and will make the required changes to promote to GA status shortly. Well done and I wish you well on your wiki-travels. LT910001 ( talk) 11:52, 19 October 2013 (UTC)
Sorry to have kept you waiting, but I believe you are ready to review a GA on your own. If you wish to pick an outstanding article, and translude the review here, I will provide guidance and comments.--
Gilderien
Chat|
List of good deeds
01:05, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: RainCity471 ( talk · contribs) 22:14, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
Ok, so over the next few days I'll review (hopefully). I can't do a lot of editing during weekdays (too much homework) and will be away from the 16th to the 21st of November.
The article does not have any cleanup tags, and in my opinion looks reasonable in relation to the criteria. It looks like a lot of work has been put into it, and I look forward to reviewing it. RainCity471( whack!) 22:14, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
Rate | Attribute | Review Comment |
---|---|---|
1. Well-written: | ||
![]() |
1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct. | |
![]() |
1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation. | Fairly confident on this, though I will check soon. (The fiction and list incorporation guidelines do not apply to this article.) |
2. Verifiable with no original research: | ||
![]() |
2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline. | The references layout look fine, although I have not yet done a detailed check on sources as required. |
![]() |
2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose). | There are many inline citations, although I will do a detailed check soon. I would recommend archiving the web urls with
WebCite (go to
http://www.webcitation.org/archive?url=(WEB_ADDRESS)&email=(EMAIL_ADDRESS) , replacing (WEB_ADDRESS) with the website address and (EMAIL_ADRESS) with a valid email). As the urls are not bare, this isn't required for GA but it would help with verifiability in the future.
|
![]() |
2c. it contains no original research. | Nothing that sticks out, although I will be more confident after I've completed reference verification. |
3. Broad in its coverage: | ||
![]() |
3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic. | The largest section is the North America history, and the "Current events" section seems to be pretty short compared to it. I do have experience in classical music but I'm not familiar with singing, so feel free to correct me if I'm wrong. I'll ask for a second opinion when the rest of the review's mostly done. |
![]() |
3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style). | Over-detail does not appear to be a problem. |
![]() |
4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each. | Looks ok, |
![]() |
5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute. | Has settled down after expansion and does not appear to have had edit wars. |
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio: | ||
![]() |
6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content. | All fine. In my opinion, maybe the Liederkranz Quartettverein image could go to the Current events section to ease the big block of text after the start of the article, but this is not required for GA. |
![]() |
6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions. | Good. The archive photo ( File:Bundesarchiv Bild 102-06264, Wien, Umzug zum Sängerbund-Fest.jpg) seems to have a caption/id numbers at the bottom of it; I might crop that off and put it on the file page instead. This isn't required for GA either. |
![]() |
7. Overall assessment. |
Here are some phrases I think could be put a bit better:
Saengerfest
, it says sängerfest
in the actual content. I believe this isn't required for GA, but it probably would be worth sorting out. Should the article be moved or the sängerfests changed to saengerfest?
RainCity471 (
whack!)
20:05, 6 November 2013 (UTC)either you have reached a page unavailable for viewing, or you have reached your viewing limit for this book
".There as a (November 11th) request for someone to finish this review. It looks like nobody has volunteered. I'd be happy to do it and will. I'll wait a day or 2 for comments in case I have misunderstood the situation. North8000 ( talk) 11:49, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
I'm afraid I'm on wikibreak now/immenently. Since I'm not sure if you're free at the moment, I've dropped a note at WT:GAN asking for someone to complete the review. Thanks, RainCity471 ( whack!) 23:23, 9 November 2013 (UTC)