Wikipedia:WikiProject Good articles/Recruitment Centre/Recruiter Central/Archives/Sasuke Sarutobi

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)

@Khazar2: Sorry for the delay; I didn't get the ping, but found this while looking through Special:PrefixIndex for resources to read. I've already been reading through some of these resources, so I'll go right ahead with the quiz.

I've given my explanation for my answers, and have added at the end which criterion or criteria I feel would be most relevant to the question (partly to become used to applying them; interestingly, I found out through this that I had a strange tendency to consider every criteria to be the fifth in the list).

And thank you again for taking me on! — Sasuke Sarutobi (talk) 15:41, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

Oh good, I was just thinking this morning that I needed to check in with you. I'll take a look at this today or tomorrow. In the meantime, you might look at the queue at WP:GAN and think about what you'd like to do for your first review. I would suggest something short and noncontroversial if possible. Check with me before signing up for one, though--it's rare, but occasionally a nomination or a nominator will have a complicated history that would be a bad choice for your first review. -- Khazar2 (talk) 16:00, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

I had been wanting to check in with you earlier this week, but I didn't want to seem impatient or bother you in case there was a genuine reason.

As for a first review, how about Japanese ironclad Hiei? From what I've seen of other recruitees, ship articles tend to be a good first review, as the structure is fairly straightforward, and the article writers are generally pretty experienced in their field. Japanese ironclad Kongō, the lead ship of the same class, is also currently being reviewed by Gatoclass. — Sasuke Sarutobi (talk) 16:20, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

I agree, that would be a good first choice. Sturmvogel is one of Wikipedia's most prolific content contributors, and it's unlikely the nomination will turn out to have catastrophic problems. Go ahead and start the review page whenever you like. Instructions on how to open the review are at WP:GAN/I. Let's talk just a little more before you start posting review comments, though... I'll be on later with a bit of advice. (Not that this is rocket science or anything; I can't emphasize enough that everybody has their own style of reviewing, and there's room for reasonable people to disagree on the interpretation of many criteria.) Looking forward to getting started! -- Khazar2 (talk) 16:36, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

I've started the review, simply mentioning that it is my first GA review and is under your guidance. I hope that's okay. — Sasuke Sarutobi (talk) 17:12, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

Yep, perfect. -- Khazar2 (talk) 17:21, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

Quiz

Can an article pass GA if the article...

1. includes a dead link?

Yes - per Wikipedia:Link rot, dead links are by no means irrecoverable, so these can be fixed and the sources verified (criterion 2).

2. makes heavy use of the word "claimed"?

No - this would fail the test of being well-written from overuse or inappropriate use of words to watch (criterion 1).

3. makes heavy use of non-gender neutral language, such as "mankind"?

Possibly - there is no requirement for gender-neutral language, even if the reviewer's personal preference is for its use, but the neutrality of the article could be called into question (criterion 4).

4. makes heavy use of the word "currently"?

No - this would indicate a potential lack of stability of the article. Generally, editors should wait for the end of whatever current event is affecting the article, and then re-nominate it after that (criterion 5).

5. violates WP:OVERLINK?

I would say no - links shouldn't be employed for anything that could be reasonably understood, so the heavy amount of linking would suggest that it is not written in a way that most readers would be able to understand (criterion 1).

6. has no discussion of the childhood of a biographical subject?

No - even if there are no verifiable sources with information on the subject's childhood (especially with biographies of individuals from a long time ago), there should at least be some explanation of why there is no information on the subject's childhood (criteria 2 & 3).

7. includes a paragraph with no inline citations?

No - this would likely either be insufficiently cited or potentially original research, so would fail on verifiability (criterion 2).

8. includes a sentence with no inline citations?

Yes - as long as the sentence does not make any statistical, significant, or counter-intuitive claims (criterion 2).

9. includes a quotation with no inline citation?

No - any quotation would need to be cited appropriately (criterion 2).

10. is only six paragraphs long?

Yes - so long as all topics that need to be covered, are covered (criterion 3).

11. has four paragraphs added by a new editor during the review process?

Yes - so long as the new paragraphs pass all the criteria.

12. includes a photograph of a 19th-century British soldier with an EU public domain copyright tag?

Yes - the image is tagged with its copyright status, and is public-domain (criterion 6).

13. fails to present all viewpoints as equally valid?

Yes - so long as all viewpoints are presented fairly and without bias; not all viewpoints need to be shown as equally valid if they are not generally considered to be so (criterion 4).

14. includes a red link in the text?

Yes - internal links are not subject to verifiability, but it would highlight a new article that is needed (criterion 2).

15. includes a link to a YouTube video of unknown copyright status?

No - this is not a reliable source (criterion 2).

16. has inconsistently formatted citations?

No - although there is no requirement for a specific citation style to be used, it would need to have a consistent style applied throughout the article, and for the sources at the end to be formatted in line with the layout style guideline (criterion 2).

17. includes a spelling error?

No - the spelling error can be corrected as part of the review process (criterion 1).

18. is based on only three sources?

No - I would suggest that this would have a high likelihood that other viewpoints are either not cited verifiably, or not represented well enough for the article to be sufficiently neutral (criteria 2 & 4).

19. includes the statement "The amusement park also has a roller coaster named Fireball", sourced to a blog with no obvious claim to expertise?

No - this would not be cited from a reliable source (criterion 2).

20. has an amusement park as its subject, but fails to discuss one of the park's roller coasters?

No - it would not have sufficient broad coverage (criterion 3).

• Some possible answers (click here when finished)

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)

Thank you. I do tend to fall back on established process if I'm not sure, so I'll definitely bear the judgement calls in mind for when I'm reviewing articles. The need for US copyright attribution hadn't crossed my mind previously either, but makes a lot of sense, so I'll certainly make sure I check for that. — Sasuke Sarutobi (talk) 02:48, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

Review 1

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 seem to have the right mindset already in place, as pretty much all of what you've said above chimes with me as the most sensible way to do things. I'm definitely aware of the need to pay attention to the reviewee as well as the article; aside from the articles, essays, and talk pages I've read about Wikipedia putting people off, I generally find that I naturally want to be as amiable as possible (though I know I may sometimes unintentionally come over as terse when I'm trying to appear more formal).

I've posted my first review comments for the article (again, apologies if I seem too eager), using {{GAList2}} as I was struggling a little to get my head around {{GATable}}. — Sasuke Sarutobi (talk) 02:48, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

Terrific. I'm signing off for the night now but hope to read both the article and your review tomorrow. And I really appreciate your speed and enthusiasm, and I know Sturm will appreciate the prompt review, too. More soon, -- Khazar2 (talk) 03:03, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

Nice work so far, Sasuke. I particularly like that you separated GA-necessary changes from your other suggestions; this is courteous to the nominator and always makes the process run smoother. I added a few grammatical quibbles of my own, but this seems fundamentally ready to pass once some or all of these quibbles are resolved. Sturm is a highly experienced editor, a past WikiCup winner and really one of the greats, so I have no problem deferring to his judgement if he feels some of our points are off-base. (Note that I made a few tweaks as I went that aren't really necessary for GA; it's often easier to just make minor changes yourself than put them in the review, especially when it's stuff like OVERLINK that isn't directly relevant to the criteria.)

Since this won't require much more work, you can go ahead and start your next review whenever you like. This time you can choose any on the board, and feel free to start work without checking in here first. Just let me know what you choose so I can watchlist it, and don't pass or fail it until I've had a chance to take a look, too. On the other hand, if you'd like to wait a bit, we can do this at whatever pace you like. In either case, thanks again for your work here! -- Khazar2 (talk) 21:16, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

Thank you! You've made the process feel straight-forward and far less daunting than I was expecting; I've rarely engaged with other Wikipedians during my time here, but the support you've given me so far has really made me feel like a welcome member of the project, and the time you've taken and patience you've shown me have been two of the main things that have stoked my enthusiasm for the GA project. I really cannot thank you enough for your support.

I wasn't especially sure how much involved the reviewer should be taking in an article, so I erred on the side of caution and made no changes. I'll bear in mind to look out for basic errors that are small enough to be corrected outright.

Perusing GAN, I was tempted to be ambitious and go for Random Access Memories, as the article reads well enough that I think it could pass on form and go straight to featured article review, but looking in the history I can see some edit warring around use of internal links, so I'm a little more wary of it. Being a major recent album, I do think that it's important that Wikipedia has a Good Article for it (I read TCO's article linked from your page, and it definitely resounds with me), so I'm not sure if I should go for it with your back-up, or leave it for a more experienced editor to handle alone.

I'm also wondering if there are any particular Good Article reviews, either yours or other Wikipedians', that you look to as models for when an article has needed improvement? I've been reading over your reviews for Kirkpatrick Chapel or the Falkland Islands, and looking to get some eyes on situations that have needed a relatively large amount work to resolve issues, but have still passed. — Sasuke Sarutobi (talk) 01:32, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

I think that Random Access Memories would be a great choice, personally. A recent release like this is likely to be a bit of a mishmash of an article, especially since the nominator's only made three edits to it. I'd be surprised if you didn't find a problem somewhere in it, though I admit it looks good on a superficial skim. And I'll be there to give a second opinion, so don't worry about taking on something complex or high-traffic if you're interested.

How to handle problematic nominations? Hm. Often it simply comes down to reviewer patience. If you check out my reviews at Treblinka extermination camp, Alexander Lukashenko, or Sea, you'll see that those reviews went on for pages and pages because they were articles I thought were important. If an article about a local rock band or an Idaho highway had needed equivalent work, I honestly would have just failed it. In the case of Kirkpatrick Cathedral, I came close to quickfailing it for the prose.

I handle different criteria problems differently, I suppose. If the big problem is with prose, I fix it myself if I have the time and patience; if I don't have time, I put it on hold for a week and tell them to file a request with Guild of Copy Editors, who respond to those surprisingly quickly. GOCE doesn't catch everything, but they get articles to a workable level at least. If the nominator clearly just hasn't copyedited at all, I quickfail; we have too much backlog to do a nominator's basic work for them.

If there are extensive problems with missing citations or reliability of sources, I usually just fail. If there are stability problems, I'm willing to give a few consecutive week-long holds for the issue to resolve. If there are significant problems with accuracy or copyvio, I'll quickfail, because that's something exceptionally hard to catch every instance of. Problems with images can usually be quickly fixed. If a reviewer balks at any suggestion I'm not willing to compromise on myself, I get a second opinion before it escalates into a real standoff.

If a nomination is a "drive-by" (no significant edits to the article) and has any serious problems, I always quickfail. Anything that requires a significant rewrite, rather than a polish and a few points of cutting/expansion, I almost always fail.

To make a long story short (too late!), there's no one good answer to the question; different problems need different approaches. Does that answer help at all? Thanks again for all your work! Just a drop a line whenever you want to start your next review. -- Khazar2 (talk) 02:16, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

I've accepted the article now, but will be spending a couple to a few days looking over it to get a good feel for the article and its sources. Looking in the history, there are a few long-time contributors who have made edits to get it to its current place.

I'll definitely have a look at those reviews, and familiarise myself with the Guild. Again, I can't thank you enough for all the help you've given me in this. — Sasuke Sarutobi (talk) 09:10, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

Sturm has now posted the last amendment requested, so I think it's all ready to pass. Does that seem alright with you? And do I need to change any of the ratings in the review checklist? — Sasuke Sarutobi (talk) 14:03, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

I agree, go ahead and pass it. There's a few bureaucratic steps in this that you can find at WP:GAN/I (updating the template on the article talk page, updating the GA list, etc.). It's a good idea to update the checklist in the review to show that it passed in all areas, just for recordkeeping purposes. You can mark the resolved issues by using a Template:Done or strikeout text (<s></s>).

Usually I give the nominator a barnstar also, something like {{subst:The Good Article Barnstar|1=For your contributions to bring [[]] to Good Article status. Thanks, and keep up the good work! -- ~~~~}}, but this is entirely optional (and I occasionally skip it for super-experienced nominators like Sturm, who has dozens of these). But it's nice to offer at least some wikilove, since the thanks you offer as a reviewer is usually the only thanks they'll get for a contribution.

Again, nice work on this--I'll look forward to your Daft Punk review. -- Khazar2 (talk) 14:34, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

Review 2

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)

Will do--it'll nice reading about an album I've actually listened to for a change. -- Khazar2 (talk) 01:50, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Retiring

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)