User talk:Elli/Drive-by nominations

Another approach to nomination
I have nominated exactly one (1) article for GA, Paul Morphy, and I have often thought about how this came to happen, and whether other people come to this process the same way that I did.

When I started working on it, in January 2023, I did not think of pushing it through some formal process, but only of making it less lame. It was an old article about a very notable chess player, and some good research had gone into it, but it was neglected. It didn't reference the biography by Lawson, which is the definitive scholarly work. The lead section had too much detail, much of which was repeated in the Biography section. I thought, why don't I just pick at this article for a while? That will give me something to do on my Wikipedia evenings.

After a few months I thought I had something nice, but now what should I do with it? I decided that I would not really know what the article needed until another pair of eyes had looked at it. I assumed that the usual experienced editors of chess-related articles already knew that I had been hacking away, and some of them may even have dropped in during that time, but how do you get a serious opinion about what you have done, in Wikipedia? It seemed to me that the normal way to do that is to nominate for GA or FA. This is an odd thing, because the criteria for (for instance) GA aren't exactly congruent with my own personal criteria for "goodness" of a written work. But that's the way it goes.

Reading about the GA process, I realized that I should be a GA reviewer before being a GA nominator, so I looked around, and, fortuitously, an interesting chess article was up for GA, Vera Menchik. By a very happy coincidence, this article had something important in common with Paul Morphy: there is one definitive scholarly biography of the subject. To be properly acquainted with the literature on Menchik, I wouldn't have to start from scratch; I just had to buy the one book, and go where it (and the article) led me. Wikipedia is only a hobby for me, not something for which I am putting in my 10,000 hours, so what I needed was a project for which I could make a significant contribution without dramatically scaling up my level of involvement. So I jumped in (May 2023); and when I was done, I was ready to resume work on Paul Morphy. I hacked at it some more, sometimes making use of what I had learned by being a GA reviewer, and sometimes doing other nit-picky things, and eventually I felt ready to nominate it for GA (December 2023). Bruce leverett (talk) 02:55, 6 June 2024 (UTC)