Wikipedia:Editor review/Zachary crimsonwolf 2

Zachary crimsonwolf
This would be my second review. i had a previous one a few months back; I had some nice reviews, but I've done a lot of changes to my edits since then and I want to know how I'm doing. Here is my previous review: Editor review/Zachary crimsonwolf. Besides that, I had an RfA about 3 months ago. Here it is! Cheers!! Zachary crimsonwolf  15:30, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

 Reviews 

Reviewed by Moonriddengirl
I have reviewed your contributions subsequent to your last editor review of June 2007.

You use good edit summaries, although your counts are somewhat misleading in that your contributions are low enough that you still only show 56% for major edits and 50% for minor edits, based on the last 84 major and 72 minor edits in the article namespace. Obviously, if you continue to contribute, eventually you'll get those numbers up. :)

I see you doing a lot of good participation behind the scenes, particularly at AfDs. Your conversation there tends to reflect thought, although I do wonder if you're monitoring those conversations after you make your input. I can't tell, since I haven't seen you return to respond to any comments. If you're not watching them, you might want to. Sometimes new information comes to light or people pose questions that might bear response. If you are, great.

Two points from the AfDs I reviewed: This one leads me to wonder if you are familiar with google news, a separate, targeted search engine within the google hierarchy. A simple search there might have been helpful to you and potentially changed your comment. I am flatly baffled by your assertion at this AfD that the article did not cite its sources. A check of the state of the article on the day you left that note suggests it had 20 inline references (although many to the same source). Perhaps a comment that references needed improvement would have been appropriate, but I can't quite fathom the indication that nothing was cited. There's a situation where if you had monitored follow-up you might have explained your reasoning. :) Subsequent comments suggest I'm not the only one confused.

Your civility seems to be good, which is an important quality in a potential admin, particularly one who self professes to "like heated discussions, not mild ones". I wonder, given the divergence between attitude and behavior, if what you really meant was that you prefer impassioned discussions to apathetic ones. Heated can have that context, but is generally used to indicate angry or agitated, which is quite the opposite of the Wikipedia goal. :) Anyway, if you did mean angry or agitated, then I heartily suggest that you continue the extra mile in maintaining civility, which is expected in all users but (in my opinion) imperative in an administrator.

The biggest gap I see in your contributions, if you still aspire to eventually become an administrator, is article contribution. Your former admin coach was spot on in noting that "most of your edits are to User or Wikipedia space. I would suggest you focus on adding to the encyclopedia for a while. You have some nice additions, like Meteora, but you should contribute more". The kind of experience you develop working on articles can't really be acquired easily any other way, and if you had more experience your response to Polarwolf might have been different when you were admin coaching him in September when he asked about his new article Vampire (Twilight). You said, "Its fine, wonderful even" with the exception of a novel summary. But a glance at that page shows me that the section header caps do not conform to WP:MOS, the article is uncategorized, and it is unsourced. I suspect you would find it very beneficial to spend more time developing articles so that you can familiarize yourself with this essential aspect of Wikipedia.

In summary, I'd encourage you to continue the way you're going, but step up article work. If you're not sure where to contribute, you might look at some of the Wikiprojects like Cleanup, where you can find articles in crisis. Good luck, and happy editing. I will be monitoring your editor review until I am reasonably sure you've had a chance to see it in case you have any questions. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 16:41, 16 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?
 * My proudest and best contributions to Wikipedia would be those to the Meteora article. I have been working on it for a very long time, and poured a lot of effort into it (although it is still not enough); I am hoping to improve it to at least Featured Article status. 
 * 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?
 * In the past year or so that I've been with Wikipedia, I have only been in one conflict; back then, I was just a newbie and had to rely on others. I think it is a very minor misunderstanding and I am sure that it will not happen again in the future. This was when I had a conflict with another user. 
 * In the past year or so that I've been with Wikipedia, I have only been in one conflict; back then, I was just a newbie and had to rely on others. I think it is a very minor misunderstanding and I am sure that it will not happen again in the future. This was when I had a conflict with another user.