![]() | This recruitment has ended and is now archived. Please do not edit the contents of this page. |
Status: Ended
Date Started: 27 March 2014
Date Ended: 8 May 2014
Recruiter: User: Figureskatingfan
Please familiarize yourself with Wikipedia:Good article criteria and Wikipedia:What the Good article criteria are not, and then let me know when you're ready to proceed to Step two. Christine (Figureskatingfan) ( talk) 00:41, 28 March 2014 (UTC)
@ Figureskatingfan I am now familiarized with the GA Criteria and the "What the Good article criteria are not" essay! WooHoo! • Talk to me! 00:56, 28 March 2014 (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-The lead should be able to stand alone as a quick and to the point summary. It should describe the topic, establish context, explain why the topic is notable, and summarize the most important points—including prominent controversies. The notability of the article's subject should be established in the first few sentences. The emphasis given to material in the lead should reflect its importance to the topic, according to reliable, published(secondary) sources. Apart from trivial basic facts, significant information should not appear in the lead if it is not covered in the remainder of the article.
The body section must be organized with headers and the paragraphs should be organized by running prose.
Also, the GA article must not contain any profanity or one-sided bias in the content, or it will violate WP:NPOV.
Fiction should only be used under a circumstance when it involves the real world. Finally, lists can be very lengthy and embedded lists should only be used when it is better than prose.
2. What is required for neutrality in a GA?
A-It should represent viewpoints on both sides and without one- sided bias, giving coverage to each.
3. What does the GA criteria mean about a GA being "broad in its coverage"?
A-It should address the main points of the topic
and it should focus on the topic without going into unnecessary/complicated detail.
4. What is meant by stability in the GA criteria?
A-Stability in the GA criteria means that the content in the GA article does not frequently change from day to day because of an ongoing edit wars or content disputes.
5. Images in GAs require the following:
Answer-E
6. True or false: Stand-alone lists can be classified as GAs.
A-False, they should be nominated for Featured list. See
WP:Featured_Lists
7. When does an article lose its status as a GA?
A- An article loses its status as a GA if the article does not follow the GA criteria anymore. See: WP:Good_article_criteria
Nice job! Perfect score. Now we'll move on to Step three. Christine (Figureskatingfan) ( talk) 19:21, 30 March 2014 (UTC)
Ok! :) WooHoo! • Talk to me! 20:46, 30 March 2014 (UTC)
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. BTW, you don't need to ping me on my talk page; I have this page watchlisted, and I suggest that you do the same.
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. (I don't have a GA up to review at the current time, because I'm kind of in a lull period for the articles I'm working on.) 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.
For our purposes, I'm reviewing Train Kept A-Rollin'. You'll be able to access it through the article's talk page. I usually choose GAs to review from the backlog list in the pink box at Wikipedia:Good article nominations, but nothing seemed appropriate for our use, so I looked through the queue until I found it. There's always a huge backlog at GAC, so it's best to try to choose older nominations, although it's not necessary. I recommend choosing articles that interest you. I like to choose reviews that expose me to different topics, although sometimes you never know what you're getting into until you're well into the reviewing process. I find that I always learn something, though, even if it's improving my people skills.;) Please watchlist this article and follow the process. I'll record my intention to use it for the Centre, and try and explain more of what I doing than usual. If you have any questions, please ask them here.
I'll start the review today, but most of the work will be done tomorrow. This is my process: I look at the instructions [1], 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.
The most important thing is to do our part in helping improve articles on WP, but almost important is to have fun! Christine (Figureskatingfan) ( talk) 21:27, 30 March 2014 (UTC)
As I review the article, I'll put some of my impressions and explain what I'm doing and why here. This would also be a good space for you to ask questions.
I do a pretty thorough prose review; most editors appreciate it and understand that I'm sincerely interested in helping them improve their articles. That attitude will get you far in how you deal with your fellow editors here. I also tend to make specific suggestions. If I ask that they do something, I make recommendations for exactly how they can do it.
Sometimes, depending on the review, I do a separate source review. Other times, I do the prose and source review together, and still other times, if the sources are strong, I forego a source review. For this article, I intend on doing a separate source review, since I'm starting to see some issues with them. I usually don't inform the nominator of my progress, but I made an exception this time, 'cause I had a joke to tell. [2] ;) As I told him, I'll return to do the source review later. Questions? Christine (Figureskatingfan) ( talk) 23:22, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
No! Hope to see if this article passes or not :P WooHoo! • Talk to me! 13:06, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
If you don't mind, I'm going to transclude the review here, Christine!
I have finished the review, and am waiting for the nominator to respond. I made some assumptions about the sources that turned out be not so true. For example, I assumed that because there was content missing from a major source, that it was representative of how the other sources were used. That turned out to be not the case, so I admitted my faulty assumption. Sometimes reviewers need to do that, as long as you explain the reasons behind your assumptions. Most reviewers will forgive you if you demonstrate that you sincerely want to help them improve their articles. Another assumption I made was that this review would be difficult, but I was pleased when that assumption was also incorrect. IOW, things went smoother than I had anticipated, and it was actually an enjoyable experience. Christine (Figureskatingfan) ( talk) 17:54, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
Ok, removed the review from this page. Are you going to do another review for an example, or am I going to start reviewing after the nominator replies? WooHoo! • Talk to me! 01:16, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
Ok! If you don't mind, can you pick me a GA article to review? WooHoo! • Talk to me! 21:30, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
Since all we're doing is waiting for the nominator of the above article to improve the lead before I pass it to GA, we can move forward. I'm fine with you reviewing an article now; as per your request, I've chosen Obsessed (2009 film). The sources are accessible, and there are minor issues with the prose, so I think you can handle it. I'll let you go ahead and "accept" it, and then I'll watchlist the article and watch what you do. Please inform the nominator that we're using it for the GA Recruitment Centre, and that as your mentor, I may jump in if I feel it's necessary. Have fun! Christine (Figureskatingfan) ( talk) 22:39, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
Brandon, here's where I'll give you feedback of your review. Just one thus far:
Any more tips, now that I finished the prose review? WooHoo! • Talk to me! 02:46, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
The GAC page would be great! WooHoo! • Talk to me! 22:44, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
After telling all these times to take it more slowly, you've gone missing! ;) I'm sorry I haven't been on the ball with this review; I've been a little distracted with other things. I think that this article is now ready for you to decide for it to pass, or if you'd like the nominator to work on a few more things. Christine (Figureskatingfan) ( talk) 20:55, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
Talk:Obsessed (2009 film)/GA4 WooHoo! • Talk to me! 22:04, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
Brandon, thanks for taking care of that, and I apologize for not being on the ball with this mentorship. It's been a little stressful and busy around here, both IRL and on project. We have a few choices about how to proceed from here: 1) We can close things; 2) you can choose to review another article for GA; and 3) I can pick an article for you to review. Ultimately, it's your choice, since it's your decision as to whether you've benefited enough from this exercise. However, I suggest that we try another review. I'm fine with either choosing one for you or having you choose one yourself, perhaps one from Cullen as he's requested on your talk page. Up to you! ;) Christine (Figureskatingfan) ( talk) 17:47, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
Brandon, I've looked at the above-mentioned article, Vaillancourt Fountain, and your review of it so far. So far, so good. The article seems well-prepared for GAC, which is such a breath of fresh air! ;) It also helps that this is a fun article to read, with an interesting and quirky topic. I suggest that you continue with your prose review, as you've promised. For this review, I'd like to challenge you to look closely at the sources. The prose, at first glance, seems strong; I could only find a few picky items that I'd suggest changing. Other than that, we're good to go! Christine (Figureskatingfan) ( talk) 20:58, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
Yes, I saw the review. I have a few pieces of feedback for you, of course. Also see my section, which I'd like to keep as is.
You're improving as an reviewer, however, I think that you could be more comprehensive. IOW, pay more attention to the small details, especially in an article like this. I'm sure you'll improve more as you review more articles. At any rate, I think that this article is ready to pass to GA.
I'm not sure how much further we can go in this mentorship arrangement. I'm inclined to graduate you, with the caveat that you know that I'm always available for any questions you may have in the future. Christine (Figureskatingfan) ( talk) 20:48, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
![]() | This recruitment has ended and is now archived. Please do not edit the contents of this page. |
Status: Ended
Date Started: 27 March 2014
Date Ended: 8 May 2014
Recruiter: User: Figureskatingfan
Please familiarize yourself with Wikipedia:Good article criteria and Wikipedia:What the Good article criteria are not, and then let me know when you're ready to proceed to Step two. Christine (Figureskatingfan) ( talk) 00:41, 28 March 2014 (UTC)
@ Figureskatingfan I am now familiarized with the GA Criteria and the "What the Good article criteria are not" essay! WooHoo! • Talk to me! 00:56, 28 March 2014 (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-The lead should be able to stand alone as a quick and to the point summary. It should describe the topic, establish context, explain why the topic is notable, and summarize the most important points—including prominent controversies. The notability of the article's subject should be established in the first few sentences. The emphasis given to material in the lead should reflect its importance to the topic, according to reliable, published(secondary) sources. Apart from trivial basic facts, significant information should not appear in the lead if it is not covered in the remainder of the article.
The body section must be organized with headers and the paragraphs should be organized by running prose.
Also, the GA article must not contain any profanity or one-sided bias in the content, or it will violate WP:NPOV.
Fiction should only be used under a circumstance when it involves the real world. Finally, lists can be very lengthy and embedded lists should only be used when it is better than prose.
2. What is required for neutrality in a GA?
A-It should represent viewpoints on both sides and without one- sided bias, giving coverage to each.
3. What does the GA criteria mean about a GA being "broad in its coverage"?
A-It should address the main points of the topic
and it should focus on the topic without going into unnecessary/complicated detail.
4. What is meant by stability in the GA criteria?
A-Stability in the GA criteria means that the content in the GA article does not frequently change from day to day because of an ongoing edit wars or content disputes.
5. Images in GAs require the following:
Answer-E
6. True or false: Stand-alone lists can be classified as GAs.
A-False, they should be nominated for Featured list. See
WP:Featured_Lists
7. When does an article lose its status as a GA?
A- An article loses its status as a GA if the article does not follow the GA criteria anymore. See: WP:Good_article_criteria
Nice job! Perfect score. Now we'll move on to Step three. Christine (Figureskatingfan) ( talk) 19:21, 30 March 2014 (UTC)
Ok! :) WooHoo! • Talk to me! 20:46, 30 March 2014 (UTC)
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. BTW, you don't need to ping me on my talk page; I have this page watchlisted, and I suggest that you do the same.
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. (I don't have a GA up to review at the current time, because I'm kind of in a lull period for the articles I'm working on.) 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.
For our purposes, I'm reviewing Train Kept A-Rollin'. You'll be able to access it through the article's talk page. I usually choose GAs to review from the backlog list in the pink box at Wikipedia:Good article nominations, but nothing seemed appropriate for our use, so I looked through the queue until I found it. There's always a huge backlog at GAC, so it's best to try to choose older nominations, although it's not necessary. I recommend choosing articles that interest you. I like to choose reviews that expose me to different topics, although sometimes you never know what you're getting into until you're well into the reviewing process. I find that I always learn something, though, even if it's improving my people skills.;) Please watchlist this article and follow the process. I'll record my intention to use it for the Centre, and try and explain more of what I doing than usual. If you have any questions, please ask them here.
I'll start the review today, but most of the work will be done tomorrow. This is my process: I look at the instructions [1], 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.
The most important thing is to do our part in helping improve articles on WP, but almost important is to have fun! Christine (Figureskatingfan) ( talk) 21:27, 30 March 2014 (UTC)
As I review the article, I'll put some of my impressions and explain what I'm doing and why here. This would also be a good space for you to ask questions.
I do a pretty thorough prose review; most editors appreciate it and understand that I'm sincerely interested in helping them improve their articles. That attitude will get you far in how you deal with your fellow editors here. I also tend to make specific suggestions. If I ask that they do something, I make recommendations for exactly how they can do it.
Sometimes, depending on the review, I do a separate source review. Other times, I do the prose and source review together, and still other times, if the sources are strong, I forego a source review. For this article, I intend on doing a separate source review, since I'm starting to see some issues with them. I usually don't inform the nominator of my progress, but I made an exception this time, 'cause I had a joke to tell. [2] ;) As I told him, I'll return to do the source review later. Questions? Christine (Figureskatingfan) ( talk) 23:22, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
No! Hope to see if this article passes or not :P WooHoo! • Talk to me! 13:06, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
If you don't mind, I'm going to transclude the review here, Christine!
I have finished the review, and am waiting for the nominator to respond. I made some assumptions about the sources that turned out be not so true. For example, I assumed that because there was content missing from a major source, that it was representative of how the other sources were used. That turned out to be not the case, so I admitted my faulty assumption. Sometimes reviewers need to do that, as long as you explain the reasons behind your assumptions. Most reviewers will forgive you if you demonstrate that you sincerely want to help them improve their articles. Another assumption I made was that this review would be difficult, but I was pleased when that assumption was also incorrect. IOW, things went smoother than I had anticipated, and it was actually an enjoyable experience. Christine (Figureskatingfan) ( talk) 17:54, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
Ok, removed the review from this page. Are you going to do another review for an example, or am I going to start reviewing after the nominator replies? WooHoo! • Talk to me! 01:16, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
Ok! If you don't mind, can you pick me a GA article to review? WooHoo! • Talk to me! 21:30, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
Since all we're doing is waiting for the nominator of the above article to improve the lead before I pass it to GA, we can move forward. I'm fine with you reviewing an article now; as per your request, I've chosen Obsessed (2009 film). The sources are accessible, and there are minor issues with the prose, so I think you can handle it. I'll let you go ahead and "accept" it, and then I'll watchlist the article and watch what you do. Please inform the nominator that we're using it for the GA Recruitment Centre, and that as your mentor, I may jump in if I feel it's necessary. Have fun! Christine (Figureskatingfan) ( talk) 22:39, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
Brandon, here's where I'll give you feedback of your review. Just one thus far:
Any more tips, now that I finished the prose review? WooHoo! • Talk to me! 02:46, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
The GAC page would be great! WooHoo! • Talk to me! 22:44, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
After telling all these times to take it more slowly, you've gone missing! ;) I'm sorry I haven't been on the ball with this review; I've been a little distracted with other things. I think that this article is now ready for you to decide for it to pass, or if you'd like the nominator to work on a few more things. Christine (Figureskatingfan) ( talk) 20:55, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
Talk:Obsessed (2009 film)/GA4 WooHoo! • Talk to me! 22:04, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
Brandon, thanks for taking care of that, and I apologize for not being on the ball with this mentorship. It's been a little stressful and busy around here, both IRL and on project. We have a few choices about how to proceed from here: 1) We can close things; 2) you can choose to review another article for GA; and 3) I can pick an article for you to review. Ultimately, it's your choice, since it's your decision as to whether you've benefited enough from this exercise. However, I suggest that we try another review. I'm fine with either choosing one for you or having you choose one yourself, perhaps one from Cullen as he's requested on your talk page. Up to you! ;) Christine (Figureskatingfan) ( talk) 17:47, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
Brandon, I've looked at the above-mentioned article, Vaillancourt Fountain, and your review of it so far. So far, so good. The article seems well-prepared for GAC, which is such a breath of fresh air! ;) It also helps that this is a fun article to read, with an interesting and quirky topic. I suggest that you continue with your prose review, as you've promised. For this review, I'd like to challenge you to look closely at the sources. The prose, at first glance, seems strong; I could only find a few picky items that I'd suggest changing. Other than that, we're good to go! Christine (Figureskatingfan) ( talk) 20:58, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
Yes, I saw the review. I have a few pieces of feedback for you, of course. Also see my section, which I'd like to keep as is.
You're improving as an reviewer, however, I think that you could be more comprehensive. IOW, pay more attention to the small details, especially in an article like this. I'm sure you'll improve more as you review more articles. At any rate, I think that this article is ready to pass to GA.
I'm not sure how much further we can go in this mentorship arrangement. I'm inclined to graduate you, with the caveat that you know that I'm always available for any questions you may have in the future. Christine (Figureskatingfan) ( talk) 20:48, 5 May 2014 (UTC)