User:Dennis Brown/RfA/TheGeneralUser

Review of TheGeneralUser
This is an editor review for admin. Please do not modify it. Started Sept. 5, 2012

Stats

 * First edit: July 2011
 * Total SUL edits: 4496
 * Article contribs: 27.59%
 * Project space: 14.15%
 * User rights: filemover, reviewer, rollbacker
 * Summaries: 78%
 * Block log: clean

Recommendations
Some of these are just observations, things that might get noticed and you might have to explain at RfA, not necessarily critical but they might stand out a bit and need explaining as a candidate. You should go to Twinkle and enable CSD logging, which will create a subpage and every time you use TW to send a page for speedy delete, it will create a log entry there. This allows you and others to easily track your success rate. Same as CSD, it is an option in Twinkle preferences. Only 4 AFD votes. AfD is a good way to demonstrate judgement. Most people that make an admin run have at least a couple hundred AfD votes under their belt, and a combined "Matching" and "No consensus" score (the sum of green and yellow) between 70% and 90%. I don't think they are very important as they don't require a lot of judgment. I didn't see any issues and it looks like you are working some with images so likely learning about this. This is an area that all admins are required to understand the basics of, and learning them is essential if you want to head to an RfA eventually. I didn't see any Fairly consistent. Moderate amounts considering the newness and light editing of the account. My observation is that you have a fair idea of how things work here. Three. Most voters at an RfA want to see at least 20, and a few expect to see at least 50. Universally, they want to see a larger percentage of article edits. 40% to 50% of the total edits, while yours is currently half that. That is often a fast track to an unsuccessful RfA. You use your a lot and it is a rather large percentage of your edits. Some might see this as your using WP as a social networking site rather than an encyclopedia. 17.13% are automated, which is a reasonable amount. Always good to keep that under 25%, and best under 20% if you go for admin. You currently do not archive your talk page, but this is considered an absolute necessity for admins. I suggest doing so now. You can look at the top of my talk page for the archive code, and it is all automatic, and you can set a number of days (mine is currently 8) before things are automatically archived. It will create the links, pages, etc. by itself, so it is very easy to do. There are other ways, including manual. You need to use a summary on every edit, even if it is simple. This is a strong no no in the RfA world. No problematic userboxes (although the fascination with anime with you young people escapes me). Signature if fine. No issues or info that I see.
 * CSD
 * PROD
 * AFD
 * NAC AFD
 * Copyright
 * Sanctions
 * Monthly contribs
 * Admin area experience
 * Articles created
 * User talk
 * Automated edits
 * Talk archive
 * Misc.
 * Personal

Final
You do a moderate amount of edits here and seem to be going a good job. I think that you need more experience before considering a run at admin via RfA, however. I don't have a lot of hard and fast rules, but my observation has been that editors with at least 8,000 edits, with 40% of them being in article space, tend to have a much better chance at RfA. I suggest working on articles more, which is the reason we are here anyway, to demonstrate that you understand the editing process and can empathize with the difficulty of writing good content. More AfD work is also recommended. Not just voting, but I find that patrolling the AfD listings is a good way to find articles that can be saved. I find worthwhile pages, go fix the article by adding content and sources, then go back to the AfD and vote to keep the article, letting them know you have updated the page so that it more clearly meets the criteria. About 1/3 of all articles that go to AfD are kept, so there should be plenty of opportunity to edit new articles there. And of course, some articles don't belong, so voting to delete them is fine as long as that isn't the only think you do there, as that looks deletionist.

Creating a few new articles would also be good. Although it isn't required, it does help us and demonstrates you can do more than create stubs or lists. And of course, we are here to build an encyclopedia, so it really helps us towards that goal.

From what I have seen, you have a good attitude and you are clearly an asset to Wikipedia. If you are wanting to work toward adminship, then I think you would have a good chance if you can shore up some of these weaker areas and give it a little time. Dennis Brown - 2&cent;    &copy;   Join WER 13:31, 6 September 2012 (UTC)