Wikipedia:Editor review/CloudNine

User:CloudNine
I'd like to see how I could improve as an editor really. I often take part by:
 * reviewing articles at FAC and GAC
 * reviewing at PR (usually in short spurts where I review 5-10 articles at a time)
 * going through random articles and tagging/improving
 * writing about the Pixies (my specialist subject really :)) and alternative rock - I have set up my own Wikiproject about the band, although it's not too active as of the moment.
 * wikifying and cleaning up articles.

I also plan to extend my contributions to other subjects. CloudNine 15:37, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

 Reviews 


 * First of all, I'm glad to see you stuck around with Wikipedia (from your edit history it appears you were gone for a year), but you came back and have become a great user. Too many people pop in, add a sentence or make a bad article, and leave. I don't really care about the number of edits you make, because to me that always seems like the non-thinking man's approach to whether this is a user. I care more about where and to what ends you've devoted yourself to. In that respect, you've certainly done a good deal on Pixies, whether or not it was a FA before you got to it. In addition you've been around the WP:namespace areas a lot, and that's certainly good to be involved in wikipedia process as a whole. However, I could see room for some improvement. For one thing, you only have a small number of user talk edits. You haven't specifically said you do RC or CVU tasks, so I'm not expecting you to have talked to half of wikipedia, but if ever there is an edit conflict or some guys keeps persisting in vandalism, I encourage you to drop them a line and try and resolve stuff. In addition, I'm not specifically seeing that you're a member of any wikiprojects... perhaps you might get involved?


 * All in all, you're edits are a real help, and I thank you for them. See you around! Dåvid ƒuchs  (talk &bull; contribs) 17:19, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
 * PS- one thing though- really try to add edit summaries- according to mathbot, you've only added summaries for 70% of major and 38% of minor edits. Dåvid ƒuchs  (talk &bull; contribs) 17:34, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the review. I'll take in to account what've you said - I tend to revert vandalism on articles on my watchlist, but more often that not I don't act to warn them through the proper channels. Just to clarify for future reviewers, I bought Pixies through GA and FA status and Frank Black through GA, and I'm a member of the alternative rock wikiproject (I'll add a userbox now ;)). CloudNine 17:37, 6 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I like the Pixies and Frank Black articles. I have them listed, and see you working away at them every day. You are good on research and detail and know how to fill an article with very useful information. My criticisms are two: some of the references are sketchy—I mean, the journalism in them sometimes strikes me as over-ephemeral—and sometimes the links go to untidy or commercial sites, or you take a critic's words from an advertising quote, without acknowledging this in the text. My second criticism is that I think you are sometimes weak on the artistic appraisal aspect, so that the assessments come off slightly cursory and superficial. Maybe you could also search for some critical material in good newspapers, like the Guardian or Independent. Anyway, keep up the good work: don't run out of steam! qp10qp 02:43, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

 Comments 


 * View this user's edit count using Interiot's 'Wannabe Kate' Tool.

 Questions


 * 1) Of your contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
 * The contributions I am most proud of are bringing the Pixies article to featured status, and expanding and improving Frank Black (which is now at FAC) and Doolittle (album).
 * 1) Have you been in any conflicts over editing in the past or do you feel other users have caused you stress? How have you dealt with it and how will you deal with it in the future?
 * Most of the conflicts have been name-related - the Pixies article was renamed to The Pixies and then Pixies (band); both moves were without consensus and I went to the proper authorities in order to get consensus for a move back. However, I've always tried to focus on the similarities between viewpoints - both editors want to make the best article on the subject - and I don't take sides as such; I try to empathize with the other person. See this diff for an example.
 * Most of the conflicts have been name-related - the Pixies article was renamed to The Pixies and then Pixies (band); both moves were without consensus and I went to the proper authorities in order to get consensus for a move back. However, I've always tried to focus on the similarities between viewpoints - both editors want to make the best article on the subject - and I don't take sides as such; I try to empathize with the other person. See this diff for an example.