Wikipedia:Editor review/Greengreengreenred

Greengreengreenred
I have been on Wikipedia for a short period of time (not even two months), and I'd like to know how I'm doing. Greengreengreen red  21:24, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

 Questions


 * 1) What are your primary contributions to Wikipedia? Are there any about which you are particularly pleased? Why?
 * Most of my contributions have been toward article assessing. I had hoped to do more with Article creation and improvement when I joined, but these last two weeks, I have mostly been assessing unassessed articles. I am particularly pleased with the one article I have created so far (Kappa Andromedae b), for its first assessment had been to C-class, and its run on the DYK section garnered it nearly 5,000 page views (up from what I believe was 32 the day before).
 * 1) Have you been in editing disputes 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? If you have never been in an editing dispute, explain how you would respond to one.
 * The closest thing to a dispute with another editor I've experienced occurred after I warned DavoV about POV inclusions into the Conservapedia article, which led to a discussion on his/her talk page (you can find it in the history) and ultimately an indefinite block on him/her. I have never been stressed out by an editor, and if I ever am, I plan to handle it with sincerity and coolness. It takes a lot to get me angry, and I would never personally attack another user.
 * 1) What do you want to get out of this editor review? Are you thinking of running for adminship? Would you like feedback on a specific area of your editing? Or would you just like a general review of your edits?
 * From this review, I intend to get an understanding as to how I'm doing. Mostly, I want to know if I'm making any boneheaded mistakes, and if so, how to correct them. Most specifically, I'd like to know if I'm being to strict or lenient in my assessing of other articles. While having assessed quite a few so far, I'm still quite new to the process, and whenever I log the assessment into the article's talk page, I get worried as to how accurate the rating was. I'd also like a more general review, as I don't intend on only assessing articles in my time as a Wikipedian. I do not intend on becoming an Admin in the near future, and I doubt I'll want to later in life, mostly due to worry on time constraints.

 Reviews 
 * Good job on Kappa Andromedae b. Congratulations on your first DYK! As an article assessor, do you agree with its current rating of C, or believe that it should now be a B? Hawkeye7 (talk) 18:20, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks! Personally, I'm fine with it being a C. I don't think it should go near B at least until it is determined whether the object is a planet or brown dwarf; and even then, it still seems like it would require expansion. Once again, thanks! Greengreengreen  red  00:59, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. But the fact that the astronomers don't know what it is is neither here nor there; the article reasonably covers the topic. It is fully referenced, properly structured, reasonably well written and contains appropriate supporting materials. So to answer the original question you asked of the reviewer: you may be too strict in your assessments. (I really enjoyed reading the article. If you have improvements in mind, go for it and send it on to GA.) Hawkeye7 (talk) 01:51, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I very much appreciate the feedback. I'll be a bit more lenient in my reviews from now on. And I'm glad you enjoyed the article! Greengreengreen  red  22:53, 11 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Kappa Andromedae b was great work! You haven't been here all that long, but I'd encourage you to explore wikipedia and find new ways to use your talents (based on your first article, you could be put to better use in article creation). Wikipedia should be a rewarding personal experience though (like all volunteer work, really) so I won't tell you what you should and shouldn't work on. Looking at DavoV's talk page, there are some things you could improve on in dealing with problem editors. I like that you didn't use a template, because they make communication nonspecific and impersonal, which is fine for cases of WP:DENY but pretty bad for editor retention, which is an important part of preserving and improving the future of the encyclopedia. In regards to the thread started by Tbhotch about his behavior, I would have handled things differently. A strongly policy-based statement is generally better than making requests or giving advice with regards to disruptive editors. Specifically, I would have made it clear to the user that regardless of his objections, he would be blocked from editing if he continued being disruptive, provided links to demonstrate his violation of wikipedia policy, and asked for a block if the behavior continued. In short, something like Daniel Case's first paragraph, but preferably more civil. Fortunately, in this case there was nothing you could have done, as I think DavoV was on a one way street to an indefinite block no matter what you said. Furthermore, in such hopeless cases, RandyKitty's approach may be yet more appropriate, considering you're not going to make them edit constructively, you may as well derive some humor from their existence.
 * I don't have any experience in assessing articles, so I can't provide much insight there, but remember that a bold edit is better than none at all, and you won't (in theory) be lynched for making a little mistake or misjudgement. As I said earlier, I think venturing into new areas of editing would be good for you, but unfortunately may require reading a lot of policies, guidelines, essays, and discussions. As I like to say to new or prospective users, the learning curve can be really steep at first, but it's worth it. Once you're familiar with many of the most essential ideas around being a Wikipedian, you can become a really good Wikipedian.
 * Sorry for that being so much advice and so little actual review; I've never done one of these before. In any case, you're doing very well as an editor, and may you go on to do great things for the project. Rutebega  ( talk ) 03:59, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, I certainly should have been a bit more stern toward Davov (at the very least warn about being blocked in my POV/PA message), and, as my experience has grown, I suspect I will act more sternly toward editors like him/her in the future. Aside from the PA, though, I did in fact derive a good laugh from some of the things he changed! Also, I enjoy reading the WP policies/essays, and while I certainly can't say I've read nearly all of them, I have read quite a few. I'm trying to expand into new areas (I'm very much inclined to start GA Reviewing), and I hope to create a large number of articles in the future. Thank you for complimenting Kappa Andromedae b and for this very informative editor review! Greengreengreen  red  04:48, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I think you are doing very well! ;)  CURTAINTOAD! TALK! 09:14, 16 January 2013 (UTC)