Wikipedia:WikiProject Good articles/Recruitment Centre/Recruiter Central/Archives/User:BrandonWu

BrandonWu by Christine

Status: Ended

Date Started: 27 March 2014

Date Ended: 8 May 2014

Recruiter: User: Figureskatingfan

---

Step one

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)

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?
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:

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.

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)

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. 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!

Actually, Brandon, I do mind. It clutters things up here and wastes space, I think. All you have to do is put the GAC on your watchlist, and then remove it once it's over. However, this is your space as much as mine, so if you feel it's necessary, it can stay. My strong preference is that it not stay. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 17:04, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

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)

Thanks for that. And whoa, slow down there a little. Let's wait until the nominator of the first review responds, and until I pass it. To answer your question, though, it depends on what you'd like. I can model a second GA, or you can venture out on your own and I can observe. I think that this review was so good, that it was enough as an example. Just let me know what you want me to do, and I can either choose an article for you to review, or you can choose your own. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 15:55, 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)

Review #2

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:

• Plot: According to MOS:PLOT, "The plot summary for a work, on a page about that work, do not need to be sourced with in-line citations, as it is generally assumed that the work itself is the primary source for the plot summary. However, editors are encouraged to add sourcing if possible. If a plot summary includes a direct quote from the work, this must be cited using inline citations per WP:QUOTE. Sometimes a work will be summarized by secondary sources, which can be used for sourcing. Otherwise, using brief quotation citations from the primary work can be helpful to source key or complex plot points." The plot summary here doesn't include a direct quote from the film, and it's not summarized by summary sources. Consequently, there is no need for in-line references in this case. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 17:20, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

Any more tips, now that I finished the prose review? WooHoo! • Talk to me! 02:46, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

I do, but remember to give the nominator a week to address your comments. I failed to notice, and it concerns me a bit, that this is the 4th GAC for this article. The first two failed because the nominator failed to address the reviewers' comments; the third GAC, however, was closed a bit prematurely, I think. The nominator this time (User:Adabow seems a little more interested in it this time, though. I do think that you missed some things in the prose review. How should we handle it? Do you want me to put my feedback here, or at the GAC page? Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 21:49, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

The GAC page would be great! WooHoo! • Talk to me! 22:44, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Okey dokey, going to do that now. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 00:35, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

@Figureskatingfan Didn't quite see the feedback yet, you busy? WooHoo! • Talk to me! 00:51, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Always, my dear, always. ;) Just finished now; I needed a little time to complete it, doncha know! Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 01:33, 8 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)

Sorry! Been a little busy IRL, I will probably decide when you see my reply, so check it out :P.

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)

@Figureskatingfan: I'd like to choose one myself, and one from Cullen would be great! WooHoo! • Talk to me! 12:00, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

Sounds good, go right ahead. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 15:23, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

I have nominated an article that I started and am the lead writer of: Vaillancourt Fountain. I will appreciate any feedback and suggestions for improvement. Thank you. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:56, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

Review #3

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)

Went ahead and finished my prose review. If you didn't find any more mistakes, I'll delete your section off the page, and I'll begin the source review. WooHoo! • Talk to me! 21:58, 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.

• Picky point: When you create sections, the rule of thumb is to capitalize the first word of the section titles; see WP:SECTIONCAPS.
• Lead: make sure that you comment on the length of the lead, which is fine in this case. I find that the leads of many GACs are either too long or too short. See WP:LEADLENGTH. Also make sure that you check if the lead is comprehensive and summarizes the content of the article, which is also fine in this case.
• Images: see my feedback at the GAC. I suggest that when you make a recommendation about something, like "Add more images", that you make a more specific suggestion. For example, you could do what I did, which is to suggest a specific image.
• Hoving is actually mentioned previously, and is identified, in the "Design and construction" section. When I give editors prose suggestions, as you did about "its" versus "it's", I like to suggest that they look for other similar errors, just in case both I and he have missed them.
• Notice my feedback about sources and how they can be used to expand the article. Remember, you're not just assessing an article to see if it satisfies the GA criteria; you're giving feedback and suggestions for helping articles become all that they can be. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 22:34, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

Hi Christine! I finished up my source review. It seems to me that Cullen is busy IRL, but I'm seeing him answer questions at the Teahouse. I already pinged him, but should I send him a talkback template or something else? WooHoo! • Talk to me! 12:55, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

Pinging never hurts. ;) Yah, it'd be a good idea to put some kind of note on his talk page to update him about your review. Sometimes people are busy, as you say, or they forget that it's happening. Although remember that there's no deadline here, and give him time to respond, within reason. Nominators have a week to respond to reviews, and if a few weeks go by without a response, it's acceptable to fail the article. I doubt that this will happen with Cullen, though, especially since he asked you to review the article. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 16:31, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

Hello and thanks to both of you. I didn't notice your recent work on the review until just now. I guess my watch list is a bit excessive. I am busy off Wikipedia for quite a few hours so I will reply in detail later today. With regards to the fact that many of the references are from the San Francisco Chronicle, I will point out that the articles span many years and are by a variety of reporters and critics, some quite notable. And I think that it is clear that the Chronicle is pretty much the "newspaper of record" for Northern California history and art. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 18:19, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

You're welcome, Cullen. I'll go ahead and respond to your statement about The Chronicle here, as a part of my feedback for Brandon.

• I agree with Cullen about using this particular newspaper as a source, especially in this instance. Sometimes using news sources are appropriate, especially for articles like this, which wouldn't normally be discussed in books and periodicals. You often, again depending upon the type of article, need to use these kinds of sources for WP:COMPREHENSIVE. The Chronicle is the best source in this case because as Cullen says, it's a major news source for the Bay Area. I would also accept People, for similar reasons; since it's a celebrity source and the information it supports is about a celebrity, although I agree that as a general rule, it should be used sparingly.
• In some cases, it's crucial that you analyze the sources more carefully. For the most part, the sources in this article are good, but I found an error. I highly suggest that you visit each source, make sure that they work, and that they support the statements they're supposed to support. I don't bother doing this for every article; in some cases, a spot check is all that's necessary, either because they end up being okay or I find more than 2 or 3, which indicates that work needs to be done to ensure the quality of all sources used. I wanted to model checking sources for you, so I went ahead and looked at all the sources in this article, which was a good thing because I found the error. I also check for how well the sources are utilized; I find that for many GACs, this is a weak area. IOW, many editors don't use the information in the sources very effectively in the article, or they misquote or misinterpret the content. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 20:48, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

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)

Ok, thanks Christine! Also, I just learned that the GA Recruitment Centre is no longer an active project. Why did that happen? WooHoo! • Talk to me! 23:14, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

You're welcome. I was going to ask if I should end the recruitment, but I now that the project is inactive, it probably wouldn't matter. Hmm, I didn't know about it until you told me, and then after some digging, I see that the main coordinator of the project, User:Dom497, is on a wikibreak. Let me see what I can do about that! Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 03:41, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

Would you consider stepping into that role, Figureskatingfan? Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:10, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

I added the inactive banners based off what I saw. I haven't been to the recruitment pages for a few months and when I took a look I noticed that there were requests to be recruited from six months ago, several abandoned recruitments, and lack of recruiter willingness to at least update some pages based the the recruitments that have gone absolutely no where. I guess there is still one recruiter still interested in helping out and I'll update the banners to say that the project isn't very active but still in "operation". Also, not to sound like a Debbie Downer, but I wouldn't call my self the coordinator. I saw all of this coming and called the project a failure several months ago and kinda abandoned the project (which is why I tried reviving the Backlog Drives but those have also failed). So ya, go ahead and continue the recruitment!--Dom497 (talk) 00:42, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

Hey @Dom497: I'll be a recruiter to help out the project! Also, I see that Titusfox has made a request, so maybe let's ask him if he wants to be with me or Figureskatingfan..... WooHoo! • Talk to me! 22:00, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

Make sure you meet the criteria on the Recruiter Central page first!--Dom497 (talk) 23:21, 7 May 2014 (UTC)