![]() | This recruitment has ended and is now archived. Please do not edit the contents of this page. |
Status: Abandoned
Date Started: 2013-07-10
Date Ended: May 7, 2014
Recruiter: Christine (Figureskatingfan) ( talk)
Please familiarize yourself with Wikipedia:Good article criteria and Wikipedia:What the Good article criteria are not. Christine (Figureskatingfan) ( talk) 20:41, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
Take the quiz below. You must score at least an 80% (5 out of 7) to pass.
1. What
manual of style guidelines must an article comply with in order to be a GA?
A: It should comply with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.
2. What is required for neutrality in a GA?
It represents viewpoints unbiasedly, giving due weight to each.
3. What does the GA criteria mean about a GA being "broad in its coverage"?
Covers all topics, stays on track without wandering off, to metaphorise it.
4. What is meant by stability in the GA criteria?
No current edit wars on the article or wheel warring.
5. Images in GAs require the following:
A: All of the above, I believe.
6. True or false: Stand-alone lists can be classified as GAs.
Non. However, they could be classified as a featured list.
7. When does an article lose its status as a GA?
A: When it (hopefully) becomes a featured article, the "next step up". Or when a editor requests a review and the article is found to no longer match the good article criteria.
Christine (Figureskatingfan) (
talk) 18:16, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
Hope I did well! jcc ( tea and biscuits) 19:55, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
Jcc, you're my third recuittee (I'm so popular!), so I thought that, instead of repeating myself here, that I'd refer to what I've already done. Please read this: [1] If you like, I can model another GA review for you. It's up to you; just let me know. Oh, and don't bother putting a talkback notice on my talk page; I have this page watch-listed, so it's unnecessary. Christine (Figureskatingfan) ( talk) 21:22, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
I'll start the review now. I think that having a mentor model a GA review is a good idea; I was exposed to GAC and the review process by submitting the articles I worked on to GAC and seeing how other editors did it. Then I was asked by a fellow editor to review one of his articles, found that it's fun, and was hooked. I also think that it's fair to "pay it forward" by reviewing someone else's article when I've submitted one of mine for review. If I expect others to review my articles, it's only right that I review as well.
For me, I learned how to review GAs by seeing how others do it, through my own GAs. I suggest that you do the same, and put yourself through the process. Choose one of the articles you've worked on improving until you're confident that it fulfills the GA criteria, and then put it in the queue. The queue tends to be long, so you'll probably wait a couple of months. Unlike FAC, there's no limit in how many articles you can put in the queue, so I suggest submitting a few at a time. For this process, I'll follow the recommendations of the recruitment centre and model an GAC for you here. I'll use this space to explain what I'm doing, and be more descriptive about the process throughout the GAC. If you have any questions, please ask them here.
First, I look at the instructions [2], because I'm a horrible memorizer and to make sure that I hit everything I need to. I don't tend to quickfail articles; I've never seen one in such bad shape at GAC. I've found that most editors that submit an article to the GAC process do so in good faith and because they sincerely want to improve articles. I tend to use a template ( Wikipedia:Good article nominations/templates, although you don't have to. Just make sure that you check the article against the GA criteria. My favorite is Template:GAList2, and I refer back to it to make sure that I use it correctly. Then I cut-and-paste it into the review page, and go from there. Christine (Figureskatingfan) ( talk) 17:07, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
Notice how I structure a review. I use a level-3 heading; most of the time, I separate the prose and source review, depending upon the article. For this article, I think that I'll separate them, since there are very few sourcing problems and it makes more sense to look at them at the end. For the prose review, I go through each section and direct the nominator to make corrections, often by making suggestions, which seems to be standard practice, especially in FACs. If I want to make a point, or make a suggestion that I think will be educational, I do it here. I'll just copy-edit if the changes I want made seem un-controversial (i.e., typos or small grammar errors). Often, I have questions that affect my copy-edit, so I ask them and based upon the answer, I either make the changes myself or request that the editor do so. I also tend to put the original version in italics, and my suggestion in quote--totally a personal convention to differentiate them. I bullet each suggestion.
There are pros and cons to choosing this article for our purposes. The prose is already strong, so there wasn't a lot of feedback to model, but you have been able to see what to do with an article that's already close to GA. I had to be pretty picky with this one. Would it be that all articles submitted to GAC were as prepared as this one. I'll get to the source review tomorrow. Christine (Figureskatingfan) ( talk) 00:42, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
It looks like I'm finished with the review now. The editor hasn't responded to any of my feedback yet, so I'll go and ping him on his talk page, and then wait to see what happens. Christine (Figureskatingfan) ( talk) 18:27, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
As you probably saw, the nominator waited pretty close to the deadline to address my feedback, and then I got busy, too. He did a good job addressing my comments; if it weren't for the weak lead, I would've passed the article. As I said in the review, I'm waiting for him to improve the lead before I pass it to GA; again, he has another week. I also did some additional copy-editing. More to come! Christine (Figureskatingfan) ( talk) 19:26, 30 July 2013 (UTC
Hi, the nominator followed my suggestions and expanded the article's lead, so I passed it to GA. The next step, according to the Recruitment instructions, is modelling another GA review for you. I'm happy to do so, if you feel it's necessary. Or we can move forward to you reviewing an article. It's up to you; just let me know. Christine (Figureskatingfan) ( talk) 16:28, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
I reviewed your GA review of Talk:Star Trek: Planet of the Titans/GA1, which is an interesting, cool, and good choice, and am ready with some feedback for you.
What it all comes down to is that this article needs more than the cursory review you gave it. Different reviewers have different ways of reviewing articles, but I'm the kind of picky, nit-picky person who wants every article I come into contact with to be improved as much as possible. I enjoy being part of the process to help them get that way, and I enjoy helping other editors. Remember, you can leave or take my advice. I'm just not the kind of editor that passes articles just for the sake of passing them. Other editors can, and do, but that's not me. I hope that this is helpful to you. Christine (Figureskatingfan) ( talk) 20:30, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
@ Figureskatingfan:Do you recommend any articles, or should I just go for one I like? 2007–08 Arsenal F.C. season looks like one I'm interested in, but I don't know whether the editor takes GA Recruitment "trainees"? jcc ( tea and biscuits) 20:47, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
The only time that I watch soc--oh excuse me, football is during the Olympics, and other than that, the only sports I watch is--wait for it--figure skating. But for some reason, I actually like reviewing sports articles because it exposes me to new things. Most of these articles have been about basketball, why I dunno. ;)
The most important suggestion I have is to follow the convention at FAC and divide up your comments into bullet points. Your method, putting all your feedback in one paragraph, makes it difficult to follow and to respond to. I was WP: BOLD and divided them up for you. Christine (Figureskatingfan) ( talk) 22:37, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
You stopped your prose review at the "Group stage" section. Does that mean you're finished? If so, that's fine, but it's customary to tell the editor and tell him/her that he/she has a week to complete addressing your feedback. I'm starting my review now; I may not finish tonight, but I'll definitely get to it by tomorrow. I also put a note on User talk:Miyagawa to tell him that there was more at the ST article to address. Christine (Figureskatingfan) ( talk) 23:22, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
Update: The nominator of the football article has followed my suggestions, and as I stated there, I believe it's ready for it to be passed. Jcc, I'm still not convinced that you're ready to graduate from the recruitment centre, mostly because I didn't think that this last one was complete and thorough enough. I don't know what to do about that. I suggested that you do a more thorough review of the prose, but I didn't think that you did that. Do you need more practice? Do you feel ready to go a GA-review on your own, without supervision? Is this a valuable process for you? What do you think our next step should be? Lots of questions, I know, but I think they're important enough to be answered. Christine (Figureskatingfan) ( talk) 19:22, 7 September 2013 (UTC)
![]() | This recruitment has ended and is now archived. Please do not edit the contents of this page. |
Status: Abandoned
Date Started: 2013-07-10
Date Ended: May 7, 2014
Recruiter: Christine (Figureskatingfan) ( talk)
Please familiarize yourself with Wikipedia:Good article criteria and Wikipedia:What the Good article criteria are not. Christine (Figureskatingfan) ( talk) 20:41, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
Take the quiz below. You must score at least an 80% (5 out of 7) to pass.
1. What
manual of style guidelines must an article comply with in order to be a GA?
A: It should comply with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.
2. What is required for neutrality in a GA?
It represents viewpoints unbiasedly, giving due weight to each.
3. What does the GA criteria mean about a GA being "broad in its coverage"?
Covers all topics, stays on track without wandering off, to metaphorise it.
4. What is meant by stability in the GA criteria?
No current edit wars on the article or wheel warring.
5. Images in GAs require the following:
A: All of the above, I believe.
6. True or false: Stand-alone lists can be classified as GAs.
Non. However, they could be classified as a featured list.
7. When does an article lose its status as a GA?
A: When it (hopefully) becomes a featured article, the "next step up". Or when a editor requests a review and the article is found to no longer match the good article criteria.
Christine (Figureskatingfan) (
talk) 18:16, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
Hope I did well! jcc ( tea and biscuits) 19:55, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
Jcc, you're my third recuittee (I'm so popular!), so I thought that, instead of repeating myself here, that I'd refer to what I've already done. Please read this: [1] If you like, I can model another GA review for you. It's up to you; just let me know. Oh, and don't bother putting a talkback notice on my talk page; I have this page watch-listed, so it's unnecessary. Christine (Figureskatingfan) ( talk) 21:22, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
I'll start the review now. I think that having a mentor model a GA review is a good idea; I was exposed to GAC and the review process by submitting the articles I worked on to GAC and seeing how other editors did it. Then I was asked by a fellow editor to review one of his articles, found that it's fun, and was hooked. I also think that it's fair to "pay it forward" by reviewing someone else's article when I've submitted one of mine for review. If I expect others to review my articles, it's only right that I review as well.
For me, I learned how to review GAs by seeing how others do it, through my own GAs. I suggest that you do the same, and put yourself through the process. Choose one of the articles you've worked on improving until you're confident that it fulfills the GA criteria, and then put it in the queue. The queue tends to be long, so you'll probably wait a couple of months. Unlike FAC, there's no limit in how many articles you can put in the queue, so I suggest submitting a few at a time. For this process, I'll follow the recommendations of the recruitment centre and model an GAC for you here. I'll use this space to explain what I'm doing, and be more descriptive about the process throughout the GAC. If you have any questions, please ask them here.
First, I look at the instructions [2], because I'm a horrible memorizer and to make sure that I hit everything I need to. I don't tend to quickfail articles; I've never seen one in such bad shape at GAC. I've found that most editors that submit an article to the GAC process do so in good faith and because they sincerely want to improve articles. I tend to use a template ( Wikipedia:Good article nominations/templates, although you don't have to. Just make sure that you check the article against the GA criteria. My favorite is Template:GAList2, and I refer back to it to make sure that I use it correctly. Then I cut-and-paste it into the review page, and go from there. Christine (Figureskatingfan) ( talk) 17:07, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
Notice how I structure a review. I use a level-3 heading; most of the time, I separate the prose and source review, depending upon the article. For this article, I think that I'll separate them, since there are very few sourcing problems and it makes more sense to look at them at the end. For the prose review, I go through each section and direct the nominator to make corrections, often by making suggestions, which seems to be standard practice, especially in FACs. If I want to make a point, or make a suggestion that I think will be educational, I do it here. I'll just copy-edit if the changes I want made seem un-controversial (i.e., typos or small grammar errors). Often, I have questions that affect my copy-edit, so I ask them and based upon the answer, I either make the changes myself or request that the editor do so. I also tend to put the original version in italics, and my suggestion in quote--totally a personal convention to differentiate them. I bullet each suggestion.
There are pros and cons to choosing this article for our purposes. The prose is already strong, so there wasn't a lot of feedback to model, but you have been able to see what to do with an article that's already close to GA. I had to be pretty picky with this one. Would it be that all articles submitted to GAC were as prepared as this one. I'll get to the source review tomorrow. Christine (Figureskatingfan) ( talk) 00:42, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
It looks like I'm finished with the review now. The editor hasn't responded to any of my feedback yet, so I'll go and ping him on his talk page, and then wait to see what happens. Christine (Figureskatingfan) ( talk) 18:27, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
As you probably saw, the nominator waited pretty close to the deadline to address my feedback, and then I got busy, too. He did a good job addressing my comments; if it weren't for the weak lead, I would've passed the article. As I said in the review, I'm waiting for him to improve the lead before I pass it to GA; again, he has another week. I also did some additional copy-editing. More to come! Christine (Figureskatingfan) ( talk) 19:26, 30 July 2013 (UTC
Hi, the nominator followed my suggestions and expanded the article's lead, so I passed it to GA. The next step, according to the Recruitment instructions, is modelling another GA review for you. I'm happy to do so, if you feel it's necessary. Or we can move forward to you reviewing an article. It's up to you; just let me know. Christine (Figureskatingfan) ( talk) 16:28, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
I reviewed your GA review of Talk:Star Trek: Planet of the Titans/GA1, which is an interesting, cool, and good choice, and am ready with some feedback for you.
What it all comes down to is that this article needs more than the cursory review you gave it. Different reviewers have different ways of reviewing articles, but I'm the kind of picky, nit-picky person who wants every article I come into contact with to be improved as much as possible. I enjoy being part of the process to help them get that way, and I enjoy helping other editors. Remember, you can leave or take my advice. I'm just not the kind of editor that passes articles just for the sake of passing them. Other editors can, and do, but that's not me. I hope that this is helpful to you. Christine (Figureskatingfan) ( talk) 20:30, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
@ Figureskatingfan:Do you recommend any articles, or should I just go for one I like? 2007–08 Arsenal F.C. season looks like one I'm interested in, but I don't know whether the editor takes GA Recruitment "trainees"? jcc ( tea and biscuits) 20:47, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
The only time that I watch soc--oh excuse me, football is during the Olympics, and other than that, the only sports I watch is--wait for it--figure skating. But for some reason, I actually like reviewing sports articles because it exposes me to new things. Most of these articles have been about basketball, why I dunno. ;)
The most important suggestion I have is to follow the convention at FAC and divide up your comments into bullet points. Your method, putting all your feedback in one paragraph, makes it difficult to follow and to respond to. I was WP: BOLD and divided them up for you. Christine (Figureskatingfan) ( talk) 22:37, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
You stopped your prose review at the "Group stage" section. Does that mean you're finished? If so, that's fine, but it's customary to tell the editor and tell him/her that he/she has a week to complete addressing your feedback. I'm starting my review now; I may not finish tonight, but I'll definitely get to it by tomorrow. I also put a note on User talk:Miyagawa to tell him that there was more at the ST article to address. Christine (Figureskatingfan) ( talk) 23:22, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
Update: The nominator of the football article has followed my suggestions, and as I stated there, I believe it's ready for it to be passed. Jcc, I'm still not convinced that you're ready to graduate from the recruitment centre, mostly because I didn't think that this last one was complete and thorough enough. I don't know what to do about that. I suggested that you do a more thorough review of the prose, but I didn't think that you did that. Do you need more practice? Do you feel ready to go a GA-review on your own, without supervision? Is this a valuable process for you? What do you think our next step should be? Lots of questions, I know, but I think they're important enough to be answered. Christine (Figureskatingfan) ( talk) 19:22, 7 September 2013 (UTC)