Wikipedia:Editor review/John F. Lewis

John F. Lewis
Recently (Within the past month) I received reviewer rights and logged 1000 edits. With this, I am requesting a review on my edits purely because I believe I a reasonable editor but there are many ways where I believe I am not doing either what is expected by the community or is viewed differently by a number of editors. John F. Lewis (talk) 22:28, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

 Questions

 Reviews 
 * 1) What are your primary contributions to Wikipedia? Are there any about which you are particularly pleased? Why?
 * Most of my contributions lie at Article for Creation and Articles for Deletion. Other main-space contributions are either tagging/de-tagging article or improving the overall quality of articles. Probably one of my most pleasing contributions to Wikipedia is the work I have done to Sergey Brin and the successful GA that came out of it. My smaller edits are given to either Technological, Business or Medical articles.
 * 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.
 * Yes, I have been in the situation where several other editors have caused some sort of stress on me. Luckily though some part of the situation was taken off of me by fellow editor Sergecross73 and I stepped out of the situation before it caused any major stress (Suggested by ItsZippy) and could have resulted in a few unnecessary actions. The major stressful event must be one of the Article for Deletion I nominated which in the end was deleted. In that, I admit I did use a policy (WP:COI) out of context which did escalate the situation. At two other times I was accused of breaching of not assuming good faith and biting newcomers, I dealt with those two cases with a calm level head and in the end the editor retracted their comment. So far no stressful situation has resulted in my taking/doing any action which is against Wikipedia policy and in the future, I hope not to.
 * 1) So what in particular made you want to do an editor review? I haven't had to chance to look through your other edits, so all I can go off of is what I saw in the AFD you mentioned above, but in those interactions, I was extremely impressed of your knowledge of Wikipedia's deletion rationales. Probably some of the best I've ever come across considering how new you were at the time.  Sergecross73   msg me   02:19, 9 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I wanted to do an Editor review purely to review my contributions across all of my work at Wikipedia. One major reason for the review is most users who I interact with give positive feedback to me either via user talk or via email. The reason for this is I would to come into a part where there ate likely to be people who have never or barely interacted with me who can give constructive feedback on how I can improve at Wikipedia.
 * Alright, I understand. That's very commendable. I read your original statement, and thought it was alluding to a certain reason(s) for doubt as to if you were doing the right things or not. Like perhaps someone was criticizing something you had been doing. Sergecross73   msg me   18:53, 9 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Alright, I understand. That's very commendable. I read your original statement, and thought it was alluding to a certain reason(s) for doubt as to if you were doing the right things or not. Like perhaps someone was criticizing something you had been doing. Sergecross73   msg me   18:53, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

With only  around 140 edits to  mainspace, I  think  it  would be better to  wait until  you  have made substantial  contributions so  that  we have something more concrete to  review. That said, do  keep  up  the good work, and don't  hesitate to  ask  me for any  help  you  may  need. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 00:56, 9 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Review by Kudpung
 * 140 main-space? Wow. I must have mis calculated my actual number of edits towards the main space. John F. Lewis (talk) 00:59, 9 December 2012 (UTC)
 * It's actually 154 right  now. You  have opted in  here where you  can keep a check  on  your edits. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:23, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

I see no problems with your editing, in fact, like before, I'm impressed with how much you know considering your relatively short amount of time here. If you ever have any more particular concerns, feel free to leave a message on my talk page and I can try to help, or direct you somewhere that can help you. But on a whole, you're doing great. Sergecross73  msg me   14:28, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Review by Sergecross73

Well well, where should I start with? I've seen you around from the very start and your edits look fine to me. There is not much to review in 1.2K edits so sorry if you find this one to be a shorter review. However, I'll try my best to give you the exact overview of what can be improved and what is being perfectly done by you
 * Review by TSU


 * AfD - I was impressed by your work there. Especially, you showed good attitude at Minetest's AfD which is necessary in an admin. Your NAC seemed to be okay but I'd disagree with few or might say, you should get little more experience before performing one. Try to participate more in that region by relisting few debates and voting at few slowly and stedily.
 * Technical side - You are one of those who do that pretty well (most probably because you might be working on similar things in real life). You should consider creating any bot and operating it someday.
 * GA reviews - GA reviews are supposed to improve the article and apply the fixes that are necessary. These reviews take much more then just reading the article completely. They are supposed to be checked against various WP:MOS policies and other personal checks (my personal list is here: User:TheSpecialUser/Improving articles). Frankly, your reviews appear to have been done rather rapidly and the articles passed by you needed few tweaks before getting to GA standards. GA means flawless articles if not perfect so reviews require more time which I feel is something that you lack in doing. Off late, your reviews have improved and they are improving. I'm sure by the time you reach 30+ reviews, you'd be doing excellent at that place. Read long reviews and also have a check at featured article candidates where you'll find numerous suggestions for improving articles in general.
 * AfC - Not to say much because you have been doing great there. I think it is the place where your best edits come from so keep it up. You've been helpful to newbies and you completely understand the project there.
 * Mainstream - That is what I call the mainspace. Though it doesn't make you any better admin, editors are expected to have large amount of article edits in a constructive manner where you improve few articles to greater extent (like getting GA, FA, DYK....). Successfully nominating an article for GA and improving an article to GA standards are 2 different aspects and both have big differences. At present, despite of 150+ mainspace edits, I don't find any edits that actually improved an article to large extent (something like GA, DYK). The successful GA nom of yours was almost there to GA and just needed minor tweaks that were suggested at the nom page and were implemented by you. All I'm saying is that in free time try getting 50+ edits on an article where you change the article completely (like adding well sourced large amount of content, grammar tweaks, ref fixes, adding refs, fixing neutrality) before going for the GA nom. And that is when you can actually have the credit of getting the GA. This job is very tedious and consumes time like nothing. I remember dedicating 6 hours everyday to Naroda Patiya massacre where I have 420+ edits and I've added 25K words of text and 60K of everything. Do something like that because the community wants one to have edits like that. In no way I'm saying to stop the minor tweaks that you've been doing around but find an article in a bad state and bang (overhaul) it till it reaches GA. It is a much better feeling to get an article where you've given your heart and your soul to GA status then getting a drive by nom to it.
 * Adminship - I'd love to see you getting the extra bits but I fear that there is way too less participation in the admin related things. Actively participating at AfDs is much appreciated but working only at one admin-area is not enough to get admin rights. You need to diversify the ares you work in to built an image that you know the things around and are eligible for admin tools. Community wants to see a need of extra tools in you and not any particular milestone at editing. What you should be doing now is that get edits in more admin related areas. Do vandal fighting, get CSDs right by watching over Special:NewPages, report vandals to AIV, report usernames that sound promotional to UAA and try working at RPP. Vandal fighting is what I strongly suggest you to do as it covers vast areas such as RPP, AIV, UAA, etc. Getting good amount of CSDs right is easy and one who works well at AFDs can certainly do exceptional at CSDs (do read the policy page perfectly before working and be very cautious there. Its equally easy to make mistakes at CSDs as reverting any vandalism).

I wasn't expecting the review to get this big. Do take this positively and don't feel dishearted or bad at all because overall, you are doing amazing. You'll be an admin someday but you need to do some work for it. I hope that this will be helpful to you. Cheers! &mdash; TheSpecialUser (talkpage) (contributions) 03:36, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the large and extensive review. I will take all points into consideration and act upon them as appropriate in the near future. John F. Lewis (talk) 07:12, 19 December 2012 (UTC)