Wikipedia:Editor review/Gp75motorsports

Gp75motorsports
STATEMENT Gp75motorsports 17:59, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

 Reviews 

Review by delldot: Hi Gp75motorsports, overall I think you're doing fine, but I did find specific areas that I think need improvement. Here are my thoughts:
 * I think it's great that you're interested in ensuring accuracy, that's a very important task.


 * From looking at your talk page, it seems like you may be jumping into things too fast, and could stand to be a little more cautious. I say this because you've had several articles deleted, and you tried for an RFA very early.  I'd recommend familiarizing yourself with the basic standards for articles at WP:STUB and have a look at WP:CSD to get an idea of what is deletable on sight so you don't get any more articles speedied.  Similarly, having a look into the RFA process, e.g. by reading WP:GRFA, could have saved you the hassle of having your RfA closed. Same thing with the arbitration committee nomination.  Also, you sometimes forget to sign your posts on talk pages.  Maybe hitting "show preview" before saving could clear minor issues like that up.


 * I also gather from your talk page that you've recently accused another editor of sock puppetry without providing evidence first. My advice to tread carefully goes double here - when you're saying something potentially hurtful or inflammatory, be certain you can back your claims up, or don't make them in the first place.


 * Looks like there has been some conflict between you and Isotope23 over Ivana Miličević. Yet I don't see any posts by you on that talk page. I recommend bringing any disputes you have about the article to the article's talk page so you can resolve them peacefully.  I also thought that your posts at User talk:Isotope23/Archive 13 were unnecessarily hostile.  I'd recommend taking a friendlier approach.


 * I also found talk page posts that I thought were quite good, very friendly even with people you're in conflict with, e.g. at User talk:Giovanni Giove. As this is more recent, this may be a good sign that your interactions have been improving.


 * Familiarity with policy - Looks like there are some aspects of policy you still need to get familiar with. For example, you voted twice in this AfD.


 * Article contributions - nice work on the Briggs & Stratton Raptor article! I only have very minor comments about that: In the lead, you should bold the first mention of the name, and I believe the MOS recommends leaving links out of the name, and instead putting the links later in the lead.  So instead of "The Briggs & Stratton Raptor series is a...", have "The Briggs & Stratton Raptor series is a...".  It's probably not a good idea to have , it discourages people from being bold and is probably a violation of WP:OWN.  Also, every article must be referenced with reliable sources.


 * Thoughts on RFA - Too soon. I don't recommend anyone to try it before they have at least a few thousand edits and 6 months on the project.  Also you'll need to address the issues I'm bringing up.


 * You have very few talk page edits, which could mean that you are not discussing changes enough. On the other hand, it could be irrelevant.  You could be using user talk pages (which you do a lot) or you could just be making minor, uncontroversial edits that don't require much discussion.


 * Edit summary usage is very good, you could bring it to perfect if you change it in your preferences to prompt you when you go to save without one.


 * Overall, my opinion is that you've been being too reckless, that you should be more careful both in your edits and in your interactions with other users, especially when making accusations or discussing perceived wrongdoing. Have a look at relevant policies and guidelines when you're trying something new, or just browse through them a bit to familiarize yourself.  I do think that the trend shows that you are improving, for example you haven't had any articles deleted lately.  So good work on the improvement, keep it up!  Sorry for so much criticism, really most of your edits are fine, but I felt the need to be honest in my appraisal of your work, and that means pointing out the areas for improvement.  delldot   talk  01:59, 22 November 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?
 * A: The Dragon on the Bookshelf and Briggs & Stratton Raptor are my best contibutions. They provide ground-level information.
 * 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?
 * A: No.
 * A: No.