User:AirshipJungleman29/Stuff

A place of relaxation, contemplation, and harmony.

GA process
Relevant guidelines
 * The good article criteria
 * Guideline for reviewing Good Articles
 * What the GA criteria are not

Relevant discussions:
 * GA proposal drive of 2023
 * Discussion on topical limits and stalled GARs


 * Closing details


 * 1) If there is no response from any editor on the GAR page, and no substantive improvements on the article itself, I will close the GAR after a week.
 * 2) If the GAR page has been responded to, but any improvements to the article have stalled or not started, I will give two weeks from the last indication of intent before closing.
 * 3) If an editor is continually working on the article without it reaching the GA criteria, up to three months will be given before closing.


 * Saving barnstar

Posting here to encourage participation in reassessments from more people than the regulars at the GAR page. These are older discussions where improvement is not ongoing and which could use more participation.
 * GAN posts



Any comments on the above would be useful. Many thanks, ~


 * For G6 deletion of error reviews, see:
 * Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Talk:Blackpink/GA1

DYK
I don't find the hook that interesting, as ... ; as DYK slots are currently under high demand, I won't be promoting it. Other promoters may disagree. ~

RfA criteria
Adapted from Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/Tails Wx:
 * In the absence of specific technical reasons for the mop, or a personal reason to support, I like to see evidence that a potential administrator knows how to evaluate improvements to high-level content, because while administrators do not directly adjudicate on specific content disputes, they do indirectly—judging on conduct issues such as WP:TE at ANI, closing discussions such as RfCs and XfDs, evaluating whether to place a block or not—all of these can involve assessing content policies like WP:WEIGHT, WP:BALANCE, WP:SYNTH, WP:ONUS, WP:NOT, WP:BLP etc.
 * There is no easy way, to my mind, of assessing whether a candidate can do that within a single question at RfA. Normally, I look to whether the candidate has significant content creations, especially FA. Borderline candidates have only one or two GAs, which may show evidence of high-quality engagement with content, or may not. Perhaps there are a couple of the content policies above which these GAs could be improved in relation to?
 * It is the hallmark of a good adminstrator that they are always open-minded, but also confident in their decisions. I would be satisfied if the candidate looked over this article they have invested a lot of time into, and thought "hmm, actually, it doesn't meet an FA criterion, and that part can definitely be improved." I would also be satisfied if they said "no, I don't think this article can get to FA, because there aren't the requisite sources", or if they said "yes, it's good enough, and here's why" — all of these responses would be met with an immediate support. The only thing that wouldn't would be a response that showed no interest in grappling with the finer points of content policies—if they don't do that at their RfA, why would they do it at AfD, in RfCs, or at ANI?
 * Again, this is a reflection of my personal, entirely subjective criteria. Others may disagree, or say that the candidate has no intention of getting involved in the areas above. That doesn't really matter to me—I feel like I should trust an admin to get involved wherever their community-granted authority allows them to.