![]() | This recruitment has ended and is now archived. Please do not edit the contents of this page. |
Status: Completed
Date Started: 00:40, 5 November 2013 (UTC)
Date Ended: December 4, 2013
Recruiter: Khazar2
Ok, starting the page. Pinging Sasuke Sarutobi.
First of all, thanks so much for offering to be a GA reviewer--it's a vital contribution to keeping things running.
The first thing you need to do is make sure you know the basic policies for this. I'll trust you to brush up where you need to: check out the GA criteria, and click through to read any policies you're not familiar with there. (I'd particularly recommend brushing up on WP:LAYOUT and WP:WTW, which have a lot to remember). You don't need to memorize this, just be familiar with what's there so you can look things up later as you need to.
Equally useful is the essay on What the Good Article Criteria are Not. Sometimes GA reviews go wrong because a reviewer is too strict on a criterion, or imposes requirements outside the criteria; this essay helps guide you away from that. You'll find this balance as you go, though, and there's always plenty of people to ask for second opinions. Ultimately reviewing is an art and not a science, so even experienced editors will disagree sometimes. Don't make yourself crazy thinking there will always be a "right answer".
Whenever you're ready, I've got a brief "open book" quiz below. Some of these have more than one right answer; this is just give us a jumping off point for discussing the criteria. Just answer yes, 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. I hope you'll enjoy the process. -- Khazar2 ( talk) 00:40, 5 November 2013 (UTC)
Can an article pass GA if the article...
Okay, all your answers look good, and I'd say you're ready to start reviewing. I'd personally disagree in a few areas, but nothing serious; these are the sort of judgement calls I talk about above. The only clean-cut one where I'd disagree is #12; my understanding is that technically, all images need a tag for their copyright status in the US, since these laws vary from country to country (and since WMF servers are in the US). That said, it's extremely unlikely that a photograph of a 19th-century person that's PD in the EU wouldn't be PD in the US, too. This is usually a quick fix.
Answers like #7 are judgement calls. Technically it's allowed to have paragraphs with no citations if there aren't any controversial/statistical/opinionated claims in them, but most reviewers would call for a citation to be added, as you did, to make sure it's not original research. It simply depends whether you think the content needs sourcing. I would let #19 slide as a reviewer, simply because "The amusement park also has a roller coaster named Fireball" isn't the kind of statement that needs a reliable source per the GA criterion (unless it's controversial in some unusual way). But it would be worth at least asking the nominator about this to see if a better source can be found. I'd also let #5 slide (or rather, I'd likely just fix it myself), but if the linking actually interferes with readability (and sometimes it can), you're right that it could be a "clarity" issue under criterion 1. -- Khazar2 ( talk) 17:58, 10 November 2013 (UTC)
Okay, let's get you started on your first review then. You sound like you've been looking around the page already, so you've probably read some sample reviews. If not, this would be a good time to do that. I keep a record of my own reviews here, and you can also look at some recently passed and failed nominees using WP:GAN's history. Just as a tip, my failure rate has recently been much higher than is normal for GA, simply because I've been doing a lot of quickfails of unready nominations (orange cleanup banners at the top, obviously incomplete submissions, etc.). I'd say GA usually passes around 60-80% of nominated articles, but this varies depending on the area you're working in.
The biggest advice I can give you as a GA reviewer is to always focus on diplomacy. Getting a GA review is one of the only times an average editor will have someone read and critique her work at length; human considerations aside, it's important that that not it not be a nasty experience just so we can retain our volunteers. That's not to say that you should ever soften the criteria or pass something you think isn't ready--but be friendly, be patient, take an extra moment to praise good aspects even of a disastrously poor article, encourage the nominator to renominate a failed article after revisions, and always thank them for their work (unless they nominated without making any edits, which occasionally happens). Approach it as a collaboration, and consider framing your less essential comments as questions or possibilities to get their thoughts instead of a long list of statements saying "this must be changed" (you can always put your foot down more firmly later). If you find that you and the nominator are at an impasse, just say, "hey, I've been wrong before--I'm happy to get another opinion", and ask a noticeboard or another reviewer for a second opinion. If they're upset that you failed their article, tell them it's an area where reasonable people can disagree and suggest they renominate for another opinion or go to WP:GAR.
And while this may all sound a bit touchy-feely, reviewers who neglect the human aspect because they "don't have the time to stroke egos" or "call 'em like they see 'em" invariably end up in protracted conflicts; these waste everyone's time and drive people away from the encyclopedia. Taking an extra moment to establish a cordial relationship with a reviewee through mentioning some common interest, a word of praise, a joke, or just thanking them for their hard work saves you a lot of time in the long run (and is more fun, too).
Okay, so I've just talked your ear off--do you have any questions? Otherwise, I'd say feel free to get started whenever you're ready. You can structure your review however you like, just as long as you mention all the criteria at some point. Templates like Template:GATable can be a big help to keep things organized. Just don't pass or fail the article until I've had a chance to look, if you don't mind.
Thanks again for your interest in this! I've always found GA reviewing to be a lot of fun, and I hope you'll enjoy it, too. -- Khazar2 ( talk) 17:58, 10 November 2013 (UTC)
I've now posted my review for Random Access Memories, so please do take a look and let me know what you think! — Sasuke Sarutobi ( talk) 01:43, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
I realize this is a terrible example for your "mentor" to set, but I'm leaving Wikipedia at least for a while, perhaps for good. I apologize for leaving halfway through this process. You seem ready to me to do GA reviews without my help--you're already doing better than most--so you should consider yourself graduated. If you want second opinions for a bit, though, you can always check in at WT:GAN or ask one of the other mentors here. Thanks for your work here, and good luck in future reviewing! -- Khazar2 ( talk) 13:51, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
![]() | This recruitment has ended and is now archived. Please do not edit the contents of this page. |
Status: Completed
Date Started: 00:40, 5 November 2013 (UTC)
Date Ended: December 4, 2013
Recruiter: Khazar2
Ok, starting the page. Pinging Sasuke Sarutobi.
First of all, thanks so much for offering to be a GA reviewer--it's a vital contribution to keeping things running.
The first thing you need to do is make sure you know the basic policies for this. I'll trust you to brush up where you need to: check out the GA criteria, and click through to read any policies you're not familiar with there. (I'd particularly recommend brushing up on WP:LAYOUT and WP:WTW, which have a lot to remember). You don't need to memorize this, just be familiar with what's there so you can look things up later as you need to.
Equally useful is the essay on What the Good Article Criteria are Not. Sometimes GA reviews go wrong because a reviewer is too strict on a criterion, or imposes requirements outside the criteria; this essay helps guide you away from that. You'll find this balance as you go, though, and there's always plenty of people to ask for second opinions. Ultimately reviewing is an art and not a science, so even experienced editors will disagree sometimes. Don't make yourself crazy thinking there will always be a "right answer".
Whenever you're ready, I've got a brief "open book" quiz below. Some of these have more than one right answer; this is just give us a jumping off point for discussing the criteria. Just answer yes, 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. I hope you'll enjoy the process. -- Khazar2 ( talk) 00:40, 5 November 2013 (UTC)
Can an article pass GA if the article...
Okay, all your answers look good, and I'd say you're ready to start reviewing. I'd personally disagree in a few areas, but nothing serious; these are the sort of judgement calls I talk about above. The only clean-cut one where I'd disagree is #12; my understanding is that technically, all images need a tag for their copyright status in the US, since these laws vary from country to country (and since WMF servers are in the US). That said, it's extremely unlikely that a photograph of a 19th-century person that's PD in the EU wouldn't be PD in the US, too. This is usually a quick fix.
Answers like #7 are judgement calls. Technically it's allowed to have paragraphs with no citations if there aren't any controversial/statistical/opinionated claims in them, but most reviewers would call for a citation to be added, as you did, to make sure it's not original research. It simply depends whether you think the content needs sourcing. I would let #19 slide as a reviewer, simply because "The amusement park also has a roller coaster named Fireball" isn't the kind of statement that needs a reliable source per the GA criterion (unless it's controversial in some unusual way). But it would be worth at least asking the nominator about this to see if a better source can be found. I'd also let #5 slide (or rather, I'd likely just fix it myself), but if the linking actually interferes with readability (and sometimes it can), you're right that it could be a "clarity" issue under criterion 1. -- Khazar2 ( talk) 17:58, 10 November 2013 (UTC)
Okay, let's get you started on your first review then. You sound like you've been looking around the page already, so you've probably read some sample reviews. If not, this would be a good time to do that. I keep a record of my own reviews here, and you can also look at some recently passed and failed nominees using WP:GAN's history. Just as a tip, my failure rate has recently been much higher than is normal for GA, simply because I've been doing a lot of quickfails of unready nominations (orange cleanup banners at the top, obviously incomplete submissions, etc.). I'd say GA usually passes around 60-80% of nominated articles, but this varies depending on the area you're working in.
The biggest advice I can give you as a GA reviewer is to always focus on diplomacy. Getting a GA review is one of the only times an average editor will have someone read and critique her work at length; human considerations aside, it's important that that not it not be a nasty experience just so we can retain our volunteers. That's not to say that you should ever soften the criteria or pass something you think isn't ready--but be friendly, be patient, take an extra moment to praise good aspects even of a disastrously poor article, encourage the nominator to renominate a failed article after revisions, and always thank them for their work (unless they nominated without making any edits, which occasionally happens). Approach it as a collaboration, and consider framing your less essential comments as questions or possibilities to get their thoughts instead of a long list of statements saying "this must be changed" (you can always put your foot down more firmly later). If you find that you and the nominator are at an impasse, just say, "hey, I've been wrong before--I'm happy to get another opinion", and ask a noticeboard or another reviewer for a second opinion. If they're upset that you failed their article, tell them it's an area where reasonable people can disagree and suggest they renominate for another opinion or go to WP:GAR.
And while this may all sound a bit touchy-feely, reviewers who neglect the human aspect because they "don't have the time to stroke egos" or "call 'em like they see 'em" invariably end up in protracted conflicts; these waste everyone's time and drive people away from the encyclopedia. Taking an extra moment to establish a cordial relationship with a reviewee through mentioning some common interest, a word of praise, a joke, or just thanking them for their hard work saves you a lot of time in the long run (and is more fun, too).
Okay, so I've just talked your ear off--do you have any questions? Otherwise, I'd say feel free to get started whenever you're ready. You can structure your review however you like, just as long as you mention all the criteria at some point. Templates like Template:GATable can be a big help to keep things organized. Just don't pass or fail the article until I've had a chance to look, if you don't mind.
Thanks again for your interest in this! I've always found GA reviewing to be a lot of fun, and I hope you'll enjoy it, too. -- Khazar2 ( talk) 17:58, 10 November 2013 (UTC)
I've now posted my review for Random Access Memories, so please do take a look and let me know what you think! — Sasuke Sarutobi ( talk) 01:43, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
I realize this is a terrible example for your "mentor" to set, but I'm leaving Wikipedia at least for a while, perhaps for good. I apologize for leaving halfway through this process. You seem ready to me to do GA reviews without my help--you're already doing better than most--so you should consider yourself graduated. If you want second opinions for a bit, though, you can always check in at WT:GAN or ask one of the other mentors here. Thanks for your work here, and good luck in future reviewing! -- Khazar2 ( talk) 13:51, 4 December 2013 (UTC)