Wikipedia:WikiProject Good articles/Recruitment Centre/Recruiter Central/Archives/Biggs Pliff

Status: Graduated

Date Started: 25 September 2013

Date Ended: 10 November 2013

Recruiter: Figureskatingfan

---

Step one

Please familiarize yourself with Wikipedia:Good article criteria and Wikipedia:What the Good article criteria are not. Then tell me when you're done so we can move onto the next step, which consists of a quiz. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 19:23, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

I've read over both of those pages, I'm ready to take the quiz. Biggs Pliff (talk) 11:28, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

Step two

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?

The opening section should, describe the topic and state why it is notable, the body should comply to guidelines for layout, language use (should not use superlatives or words that suggest bias) and any lists should be appropriate. GA's also need to be illustrated and follow those guideline.

2. What is required for neutrality in a GA?

The language should be unbiased and all relevant viewpoints should be presented without favouritism to a particular one.

3. What does the GA criteria mean about a GA being "broad in its coverage"?

The article should cover all of the most important aspects of the topic, it doesn't require extensive detail.

4. What is meant by stability in the GA criteria?

Stability means that the majority of the content of the article stays the same from day to day, no edit wars.

5. Images in GAs require the following:

1. They are tagged with their copyright status.
2. They have valid fair use rationales for non-free content.
3. They are relevant to the topic.
4. They have suitable captions.
5. All of the above.
6. None of the above.

All of the above.

6. True or false: Stand-alone lists can be classified as GAs.

False, stand-alone lists have their own criteria.

7. When does an article lose its status as a GA?

It loses its status if it no longer meets the criteria and gets demoted or gets promoted to FA. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 13:46, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

Perfect score! Good job, now we'll move onto step three. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 22:02, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

Not sure if I need to respond to this or not but, I'm ready when you are. Biggs Pliff (talk) 23:03, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, I got pulled away this afternoon. See below for the next step. Thanks for your patience. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 05:52, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Step three

First review

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. In other words, 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. Later on, when you're more familiar with the GAC process and unlike the you can submit more than one article at a time.

I has avoided reviewing articles until I asked by a fellow editor to review one of his articles, found that it was 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. You don't have to chose an article from the backlog list. You can go through the list and pick an article that interests you. Sometimes I get a request. Backlog is a big problem with GAC, so I try and help solve it, in my own small ways. 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.

One of the most recent GAs I reviewed was Talk:Ellen Southard/GA1. I chose it because it was on the backlog list in the pink box at Wikipedia:Good article nominations, It's a good example of a typical GAC for me--simple but interesting. Please look it over and see how I did it.

I'll explain the process I typically go through when I review a GA. 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.

I suggest that you be WP:BOLD and review articles about subjects that you're unfamiliar with. I know very little about naval history, which was obvious in some of the questions I asked the reviewer (i.e., my question about how to refer to the ship, which was answered by another editor). I figure that if I only reviewed articles about topics I know something about, I'd be very limited in what I could review. Plus, it's fun to learn about new stuff; that is the point of Wikipedia, after all. The danger in that is that you risk looking like a fool and an idiot. For example, I got into a conflict with some editors in my most recent GA review, Talk:Aalborg/GA1, because I was ignorant about some things and frustrated them. (I won't discuss that review here because it's complicated.) I learned some things, though, and not just about editing and writing, but how to deal with potentially difficult social interactions. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 05:52, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Biggs, it's been awhile since there's been anything added here, but after thinking about it, I wonder if it's because I failed to give any specific direction. If that's the case, I apologize. It's up to you as to how we should proceed: I can either model a new GA review for you, or we can move directly to you reviewing your own GA. Just let me know. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 19:22, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

I'm currently working on an article of my own, to get it up to GA standard, but I'm pretty busy irl so it's going slow. It's still in the fairly early stages so don't judge it how it looks right now but if you want to see it its in my sandbox. What do you mean by "model a review"? If it'll be helpful I'm up for it. Biggs Pliff (talk) 09:24, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

Ah, I know all about being busy; it's why things are on the slow side with me as well. Ah, I love Castle; Nathan Fillion is so yummy! And I adore the Castle/Beckett romance. ;) Anyway, good luck with that and let me know how I can assist. "Modeling a review" refers to me doing a GA review, and you observing, and then coming here with any questions and explanations. Like I said, I can review a GA if you like, or you can move forward and review your own. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 18:34, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

A model review sounds good to me as a next step. Biggs Pliff (talk) 20:23, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

Okay, will do. See below. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 05:17, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

First model review

I have chosen Berlin (NCIS) because it fits into both of our interests (television), and because it's about something I'm familiar with. If I'm not asked to review a GA, I usually choose an article in the backlog list in the pink box at WP:GAN because I think it's important to help reduce the very long backlog at GAN. It also exposes me to new and different information, which I think is one of the most fun things about reviewing articles. I also think that it provides nominators with fresh eyes; a non-involved third party is often the best reviewer because it helps eliminate bias and provides a new and fresh perspective. As I stated in my opening statement, I use the template first and then do a more thorough prose and source review. Watch here for explanations if and/or when it's necessary. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 05:35, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

I've finished the template and am now moving to the prose and source review. Depending upon the article, I sometimes do them together; other times, I separate them. For this review, I separated them, since there was an issue with how the editor utilized his sources. I then go through each section and provide feedback. I tend to be thorough because as I reviewer, I feel responsible for helping the nominator improve the article as much as possible. I do "outside research" sometimes. For this article, I had a question about the leads of other similar GAs, so I looked around and found the Homicide: Life on the Streets GA.

I often simply copy-edit the article, especially for simple edits, unless there's a point I want to make. For example, I directed the nominator to link "Naval Criminal Investigative Service", because there may be similar errors in other NCIS articles, and it may inspire him to fix them. One of the major issues with this article is that it assumes the readers is a viewer. Sometimes we editors get too close to the articles we work on, so we need outsiders and editors unfamiliar with the topic to notice things like this. If I give the nominator a direction, though, I offer assistance.

Regarding the source review: for most GA reviews, I'm usually not as thorough as I'm being for this one, since GAs have lower standards than FAs, but I thought I should model how I do them for you. This article seems to have issues with how it utilizes its sources, so I've stressed it in the review.

After I'm done with the review, I like to inform the nominator for courtesy sake. Let me know if you have any questions. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 17:14, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

The main question I have is, since it seems to meet most of the criteria, except the citations and the points you've highlighted in the prose and source reviews, does this mean the article is placed on hold? How much time do you give for these things to be improved/corrected? Biggs Pliff (talk) 02:10, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

Yes, the article has been placed on hold. It's customary to give the nominator 7 days to address the feedback. I don't think that this will be a problem in this case, but if there's no response during that time, you should fail the article. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 04:48, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

Hi again, so it took us about a week to complete the review, even despite busyness. You notice that I offered to paraphrase the article's "Critical reviews" section. I did that because it felt easier to just do it and demonstrate what I meant to both you and the nominator. Most of the time, people accept offers of assistance easily.

After the nominator has followed all your suggestions, it's time to pass the article. I refer to WP:GAN/I every time I review a GA, because even though I've reviewed almost three dozen GAs, I always forget stuff.

What we do next is up to you. I could review another article, or you can go ahead and review one yourself, with my supervision. You can either choose one yourself or I could choose one for you. Let me know! Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 19:25, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

I suppose I should review one myself now, keep moving onwards and upwards so to speak, could you pick one for me? The next few days are a little bit up in the air for me so it'd be best to leave it until Saturday to start I reckon. Biggs Pliff (talk) 00:46, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

Review number two (done by you)

We'll go ahead and have you review an article, and I'll observe. There's no hurry; take your time. Remember, WP:TIND.

I've chosen Speed Racer (film); I'm making an educated guess that you're familiar with the movie, and I've seen it myself. Make sure that you follow the review instructions, and that you inform the nominator that we're using it here. I'd like you to especially take check if the length of the "Plot" section is appropriate. I suggest that you also check if this article complies with the guidelines at MOS:FILM. Closely review the sources as well; for example, most of sources are old. I suggest that you direct the nominator to check every reference to ensure that they still work and that they're still up-to-date. I recently learned that the refs in both GAs and FAs should have retrieved dates less than a year old, so I suggest that you insist upon that in this article. Have fun! Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 22:31, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

I haven't actually seen it so the "Plot" section is proving a little difficult but I have noticed some things which I believe should be changed:

1. The brother subplot doesn't need to be mentioned (or at least not nearly as much).
2. Some of the language in the plot description is emotional/ on the protagonists side which WP:PLOTSUM says to avoid.

I went ahead and created the review page. Here's hoping I'm on the right track! Biggs Pliff (talk) 23:16, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

Haha, right track; a movie about a car racer, good one. ;) Yes, you're on the right track. You've nailed the template-filling-out part nicely. I totally agree with you about the cast section. Looking forward to seeing how you handle the prose and source review.

Re: the plot section: the major problem with it is that it's simply too long. According to the WP:FILMPLOT, film plot summaries should be between 400 and 700 words; the one here is a little over 700. I suggest that you direct the nominator to cut at least 100 words, which may lead him to cut what you've listed above. Make these suggestions to him; remember, always be helpful and suggest ways to follow your suggestions. Actually, I think that the Rex subplot is important (I watched the original show with my brothers when we were kids), but you're right; it can be cut for length. I also have no issue with its tone. The film is pretty heavily on the side of the protagonists, and the summary should reflect that. Again, perhaps the issue will resolve itself when it's shorter. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 17:54, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

Prose Review is done, I'll hopefully get the source review done tomorrow. Should I be worried that no-one has actually responded yet? It's their problem I suppose, not mine. Biggs Pliff (talk) 01:05, 28 October 2013 (UTC

Nice job with the prose review. As I read over your comments, it occurs to me that perhaps some of the strange wording is a result of either WP:PARAPHRASE or god forbid, plagiarism. I suggest that you look for it closely when you review the sources. Re: the lack of response: You've done all you can. A note was put on the nominator's talk page. After you inform him that you're done, it's customary to wait a week until after you've completed the review, and if he doesn't respond in that time, you should fail the article. I've looked at the nominator's contributions [2], and he's fairly active, but he hasn't edited since 7 October. If he doesn't respond within the week, you might want to think about giving him an extension. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 15:23, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

The nominator has made the prose corrections that I said to. Unfortunately, stuff has come up irl and I have to delay the source review until monday so I've told him to check the that sources work and update the retrieval dates over the weekend and I'll check it then. Biggs Pliff (talk) 11:19, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

Great, things seem to be going well. No worries, take your time. The nominator seems to be cool with how things are going. Have a great weekend, hope you're busy for fun and not for any other reason. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 16:20, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

I've finished the source review, all the retrieval dates are updated etc. I think its passable but I wanted to make sure you had a look over it before I passed it just in case.Biggs Pliff (talk) 17:32, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

I checked about ten sources myself, and they check out. I agree; it's good to go. Nice job! Go ahead and pass it. I think that you've exhibited competence in GA reviews, so I'm okay with you graduating from the recruitment centre. I could also monitor you in another review, though; whatever you prefer. Congrats! Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 03:37, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

Just passed it. That's great :) I think I'm happy enough going ahead on my own. Thanks for all your help! Biggs Pliff (talk) 14:22, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

Sounds great. It was fun! Best to you, and if you need any assistance in the future, just let me know. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 14:30, 10 November 2013 (UTC)