Wikipedia:Editor review/Eddie6705

Eddie6705
I have been editing Wikipeida since July and i would like to know what sort of progress i have been making. I have worked mostly on the Wikiprojects for Formula One, Golf, and Football, but am also starting to use Vandelproof. I am interested to hear the comments. Eddie6705 (talk) 18:04, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

 Reviews 

Reviewed by Moonriddengirl
Hello, Eddie6705. We have very little overlap in our article contributions, but it looks to me like you do very good work. :) I've had a look at your user page and your contribution log for the past 6 weeks or so and hope to be able to offer you some useful feedback. I see a lot of good wikignoming, some good vandalism clean-up and some substantial article contribution.

On to specifics, and starting small, I see good use of edit summaries, generally no-nonsense and fairly consistent. Once in a while, though, you do forget. As explained at Help:Edit summary, you can ask your computer to remind you. There's an option under "Preferences" (it's in the editing section). Edit summaries are really handy to guide people looking through long edit histories to determine who did what when, and they're also useful to folks on recent changes patrol.

You also might want to brush up on what to tag as minor. This edit is not minor, though it is so tagged. This one, which isn't tagged, is. Some editors will not bother viewing changes that have been marked as minor and so may miss substantial changes when they're mismarked. Meanwhile, some of those RCPers may be ignoring minor edits, and if your minor edits are appropriately marked, it'll save them a tiny bit of time. And at the same time I say this, I have to note that I often forget to mark changes as minor myself...though I try. :)

In terms of your interactions with others, I don't have a lot to judge by, but what I see reflects civility & an interest in working cooperatively. I note this and this, as examples.

Your use of user warnings seems consistently pretty good, although I do wonder if this level 3 warning for a first unconstructive edit might have been a tad bit over-zealous. It's blatant vandalism, so I completely agree with skipping past level 1, but you often begin with level 2 in those circumstances, a choice I support. It's a small point, but I generally advocate starting with the lowest appropriate warning level, although I will drop a much stronger first warning for some types of vandalism (WP:BLP violations, for instance). I do see some opportunities for addressing vandals or mistaken editing that you've missed. Generally, I don't sweat it much if I see that somebody has reverted day-old vandalism without leaving a warning, but when I see unconstructive edits reverted within a few minutes and no warning left, I like to encourage more follow-up. Warning labels are not only useful in discouraging further edits of a similar nature, but are also valuable in helping swiftly track the level of threat that an editor represents to the project so that they can be appropriately blocked at WP:AIV if necessary. Here are four examples, though I saw a few more:, , ,.

Speaking of communication and reversion, if you do revert somebody, it's generally good form to explain why in some fashion or another. This seems like a rather large edit to undo without any kind of notice why. I'm unfamiliar with the topic. If it was blatant vandalism, see the previous paragraph. :) If it was a matter of inadequate sourcing, it would be courteous to leave Uw-unsourced1 to explain that to the editor. If the reasons for removal were more complex, a note on the article's talk page might have been warranted.

Your article contribution looks solid. It reflects a lot of care and attention in crafting on your part. I've looked through the ones you've listed as having created. I do have one concern about some of them, regarding sourcing. I'm not familiar with the standards of racing articles, but it is nice to give people the ability to verify the factual accuracy of your work quickly. I note as a few examples where sourcing seems lacking 2008 German Grand Prix, Alfa Romeo Grand Prix results & (not a racing article) Southern League Cup 2007-08. If extensive footnoting is not called for, a simple reference under external links may be beneficial. I know you know this from looking at most of your other articles, which do supply sourcing. :) I'd encourage you to consistently supply at least basic sourcing on everything.

With regards to your deletion nominations, I note that most of them are fully appropriate and accordingly deleted. I'm always impressed when users properly tag an article for WP:CSD as you did Eddie Anaclet, because that takes memory. Memory I don't always have. :) I do have a couple of suggestions regarding your CSD tags, but just a couple. First, I note you tagged article Zayd Al-Essa for WP:CSD on December 9th 6 minutes after creation and 2 minutes after the creator's last edit. At that point, the article consisted of an incomplete infobox, and evidence would seem to me pretty clear that the creator, who had edited three times since the article was created six minutes before, was still working on it. There is a recommendation in the speedy deletion policy against nominating new articles that appear incomplete for deletion for such concerns. In such cases, it may be better to watchlist the article and check back later to see if it has been abandoned in that state. The article was eventually deleted under WP:CSD (the proper criterion, since A1 is only for articles that are written in such a way that you can't even figure out what they're about), but only after almost an hour of inactivity. The creator made two more edits to it after your tag before abandoning it a minute later. It's hard to say if he was discouraged by having an ongoing project tagged for deletion, but it's possible. Not only is it better not to tag articles in such circumstances, but as a courtesy, you might even want to leave a note letting the creator know how to add an inuse tag so that other editors realize that it's still under development. This is operating simply under the philosophy that we don't want to bite the newcomers; sometimes we even go out of our way to be nice to them. :)

I'd also like to strongly encourage you to leave warnings on the pages of the creators whose articles you tag for deletion. The tags, once placed, contain simple courtesy notifications that you can copy & paste, which is about as easy as it gets. :) People who create articles eligible for deletion often are new and generally are quite confused to find their articles suddenly gone. More than a few of them turn up at the help desk because they can't figure it out themselves. The templated warning gives them necessary information to figure out what they did wrong and hopefully prevent their making the same mistake if they choose to recreate the article. Also, in some circumstances these warnings are a prerequisite to deletion. Administrators are not supposed to delete articles for copyright violation unless the creators have been notified of policy. The message that can be copied from the deletion template satisfies this requirement.

Finally, with regards to CSD, I wonder why you tagged this in November as nonsense: Fabian Perez, full name Christian Fabian Perez (b.September 19, 1992) is a Mexican-American professional hot-dog eater. He currently holds the world record for eating the most hot dogs in twenty minutes. A quick check would suggest it is a hoax, as the current world record hot dog eater is Joe Chestnut, but hoaxes are not speediable as nonsense. If blatant, hoaxes may be deleted as Db-vandalism. (I also see that you left him a blanking warning for removing the CSD; that was some time ago, so you may know by now that there is a specific warning for removing CSD tags. There's a whole compendium of warnings over here.) It may benefit you to periodically re-read WP:CSD to be sure that you're up to date on the criteria and what they're for.

I hope that this review does not come across as focusing too much on the negative to you. I certainly don't mean it to, but it feels a lot more productive to say, "Here's something you could fix!" rather than "Oh, this looks great! and this! and this!" :) As I said in my intro, you do seem to be doing quite well. All the articles I've seen you touch do seem to come away the better for it, and it's obvious that you're interested in helping to promote the quality of articles on Wikipedia. You ask specifically about your progress; I'd say you're doing fabulously. If my recommendations can be of use to you, all the better. Either way, keep up the good work. :)

I will be watchlisting until I'm reasonably sure you've had a chance to see it. If you'd like to follow up on anything, you can do so here or (especially if you think I'm no longer watching) you can address me at my talk page. I'd be happy to expand on anything if I've been unclear. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 18:20, 28 January 2008 (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?
 * Well, i am pleased with my work on WP Golf in that i have created templates and am adding infoboxes to the articles. Recently i have also been adding templates showing a stub rating. I am also very pleased with making Oxford United a GA.
 * 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?
 * I wouldn't really say i have been in a conflict but i have had problems with some anon users before. In these cases, i have first spoken to them on their talkpage, and then moved onto to adding warnings. I have always tried to be polite when in these situations and i will continue to do so in the future.
 * I wouldn't really say i have been in a conflict but i have had problems with some anon users before. In these cases, i have first spoken to them on their talkpage, and then moved onto to adding warnings. I have always tried to be polite when in these situations and i will continue to do so in the future.