Wikipedia:WikiProject Good articles/Recruitment Centre/Recruiter Central/Archives/ТимофейЛееСуда

 Status:  Graduated''

 Date Started: 27 December 2013 

 Date Ended:14 January 2014 

 Recruiter: User:Figureskatingfan

Step one
Please familiarize yourself with Good article criteria and What the Good article criteria are not, and then let me know when you're ready to proceed to Step two. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 22:07, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I've familiarized myself with both listed articles, but I would like to familiarize myself with the WP:manual of style before moving forward. -- Тимофей ЛееСуда . 22:24, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm confident in my familiarity of WP:Good article criteria, WP:What the Good article criteria are not and the relevant WP:Manual of Style articles. I am ready to move to the next step. -- Тимофей ЛееСуда . 23:49, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Great! Good job doing more than what was asked. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 21:40, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

Step two
Take the quiz below. You must score at least an 80% (5 out of 7) to pass.

1. What manual of style guidelines must an article comply with in order to be a GA?
 * There are 5. Specifically the first three apply to all articles: MOS:LEAD, MOS:LAYOUT and WP:WORDS. The last two do not apply to all articles: WP:MOSFICT for articles writing about fiction, and WP:EMBED for articles that include lists. Remaining guidelines of WP:MOS are not required.

2. What is required for neutrality in a GA?
 * In a nutshell: verifiable WP:RS for all viewpoints. Viewpoints should all be represented in a fair manner and the article should have a WP:NPOV.

3. What does the GA criteria mean about a GA being "broad in its coverage"?
 * The article most cover all major aspects of the article's topic. It should also not go into unnecessary or unencylopedic detail.

4. What is meant by stability in the GA criteria?
 * Simple: The content of the article should not include major changes from day to day. This does not mean minor edits or clean-up but rather changes related to WP:Edit war or content disputes.

5. Images in GAs require the following: They are tagged with their copyright status. They have valid fair use rationales for non-free content. They are relevant to the topic. They have suitable captions. All of the above. None of the above. 
 * All of the above. It should be included that images need to be tagged with the correct copyright status.

6. True or false: Stand-alone lists can be classified as GAs.
 * FALSE!

7. When does an article lose its status as a GA? Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 21:40, 28 December 2013 (UTC) Perfect score! Excellent! Now we'll move on to Step three. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 17:25, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Editors who feel that an article no longer meets the criteria of being a GA can take the article for a reassessment at WP:GAR. However, the intent of WP:GAR is not to remove status, but to improve the article back into compliance.  If the article cannot be brought back into compliance, a community reassessment can delist the article, therefore losing its status.  -- Тимофей ЛееСуда .  22:21, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

First review
The centre's instructions suggest that I model a GA review for you, meaning that I conduct a review and you "watch" while I explain the process here. I think that it's a good idea; I was exposed to GAC and the review process by submitting the articles I worked on to GAC and seeing how other editors did it. In other words, I learned how to review GAs by seeing how others do it, through my own GAs. I suggest that you do the same, and put yourself through the process. Choose one of the articles you've worked on improving until you're confident that it fulfills the GA criteria, and then put it in the queue. The queue tends to be long, so you'll probably wait a couple of months. Later on, when you're more familiar with the GAC process, you can submit more than one article at a time. Currently, I have two articles at GAC, but they'll probably be there for a while. Sometimes I'll request that an editor review an article for me if I feel like I'm on a deadline.

I avoided reviewing articles until I was asked by a fellow editor to review one of his articles, found that it was fun, and was hooked. I also think that it's fair to "pay it forward" by reviewing someone else's article when I've submitted one of mine for review. If I expect others to review my articles, it's only right that I review as well. You don't have to chose an article from the backlog list. You can go through the list and pick an article that interests you. Sometimes I get a request. Backlog is a big problem with GAC, so I try and help solve it, in my own small ways.

To be honest, it's been a couple of months since I've reviewed a GA, since I was working on other projects here (such as creating new articles), so mentoring you will benefit me and get me back into it. Back in July, I reviewed Talk:Ellen Southard/GA1. I chose it because it was on the backlog list in the pink box at Good article nominations, It's a good example of a typical GAC for me--simple but interesting. Please look it over and see how I did it.

I'll explain the process I typically go through when I review a GA. I look at the instructions, because I'm a horrible memorizer and to make sure that I hit everything I need to. I don't tend to quickfail articles; I've never seen one in such bad shape at GAC. I've found that most editors that submit an article to the GAC process do so in good faith and because they sincerely want to improve articles. I tend to use a template (Good article nominations/templates, although you don't have to. Just make sure that you check the article against the GA criteria.  My favorite is Template:GAList2, and I refer back to it to make sure that I use it correctly.  Then I cut-and-paste it into the review page, and go from there.

I suggest that you be WP:BOLD and review articles about subjects that you're unfamiliar with. I know very little about naval history, which was obvious in some of the questions I asked the reviewer (i.e., my question about how to refer to the ship, which was answered by another editor). I figure that if I only reviewed articles about topics I know something about, I'd be very limited in what I could review. Plus, it's fun to learn about new stuff; that is the point of Wikipedia, after all.

Let me know how you'd like to proceed. I can either review an article of your choosing, or I can choose one. Should be fun! Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 17:25, 30 December 2013 (UTC)


 * First, I'm sorry I haven't responded sooner, I was traveling between states. Second, thank you for explaining your processes in detail, including what you do because you're a "horrible memorizer." I'm one too, so its good to know that there are ways to work around it.  Just to give you some background I wanted to go through this process because I want to bring articles to GA quality, but I want to learn how to from the outside.  Also, much like you, I feel if I am going to nominate an article for GA, then I feel I should at least review one (sort of pay it forward.)  My first article that I nominated (and is now in the backlog) is Vernon C. Bain Correctional Center.  Ironically, I know nothing about prisons, ships, New York City, or anything, but I stumbled upon the article one day when clicking random article.  I thought it was so interesting, that I did a ton of research, cleaned it up, expanded it, got a DYK for it, and I now hope its ready for GA status.  Although I wish it to be reviewed sooner, I would request someone else review it as it would be a conflict for you to do so methinks.  As such, I have no preferences on what article to review, so feel free to pick one that you find intriguing. I'm very excited! -- Тимофей ЛееСуда .  02:24, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
 * T, I asked and if you wouldn't mind, I could review this article. I think it would be a good way to kill two birds with one stone, as they say: demonstrate the review process and allow you to experience having an article you've worked on reviewed.  Would it be all right with you if I did that?  One of my first FAs (and before that, it was GA of course) was Stanford Memorial Church.  Now, I've never even stepped foot on the Stanford campus (although my sister-in-law went there as an undergrad), but I happened upon the article, fell in love with it, and found that it had the potential to become an FA, which surprised the heck out of me.  I had lots of help because I know very little about art history and architecture, too, so it was a truly collaborative project.  I learned bunches, and am still very proud of it.  Sounds similar to your story about your prison, so I look forward to looking at it, if you agree. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 17:13, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm game if you are. I think I can handle learning from both sides of the GA process. -- Тимофей ЛееСуда . 17:18, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

Okay, this review is completed. Congrats on your first successful GAC! I know that this was a little grueling and very time-consuming, but I think we'll be better for it. I wanted to make sure you followed the steps I took in passing the article; all I did was follow the instructions at WP:GAN/I. Make sure that you follow the instructions carefully. Also notice that I changed the article's topic from "Places" to "Geography" because I thought it better fit there. Change it back if you disagree. Actually, I did a little research, and found that similar articles have different topics; some are under "Art and architecture", which depending on the subject, makes sense.

Let me know what you want to do next. I can either review another article for you, or we can let you loose and I can observe you review an article. I can either choose one, or you can pick one yourself, up to you. IMO, I think you're ready to review one yourself, but it's totally up to you. Thanks, this was fun. I learned new stuff about something I usually have no exposure to, which I love. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 22:18, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
 * With my spatula in my hand, I'm Ready! Should I find an article to review from a nominator on this list, or should I find any and ask the nominator if its okay if I review it. -- Тимофей  Лее  Суда .  23:37, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Haaaahhhh! Just pick one, a bot will inform the nominator.  You can either pick one from the pink backlog box at the top of the GAC page, or you can go through the list and pick one that looks interesting to you.  As a relatively new reviewer, I don't recommend picking one from the pink box because those articles tend to be more difficult; I mean, there's a reason why they've stayed in the queue for so long.  For your first review, pick one that strikes your fancy, or that seems manageable, although looks can be deceiving.  I will help.  Have fun! Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 14:36, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

Review two
I've decided on Talk:National Press Monument/GA1. Should I just start my review there, or should I start it here and then move it? -- Тимофей  Лее  Суда . 17:23, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I have a draft of my review in my sandbox right now. User:ТимофейЛееСуда/sandbox. --  Тимофей  Лее  Суда .  23:13, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Sorry I didn't answer you before; I was a little distracted today. You can go ahead and put it in review space.  I'll take a look at it now. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 00:52, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Alright, its there. Do I need to notify the nominator? -- Тимофей  Лее  Суда .  01:38, 12 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Great. If you put it on hold, a bot will inform the nominator on his talk page, although you can inform him if you don't want to change the little icons.  I have some feedback/comments, which I'll put here.


 * I think that you nailed it about the caption of the image in the infobox, since captions of this sort usually do describe the view of the building. I think that you should change your opinion to a clear instruction to change the caption.
 * The lead is long enough, but it doesn't give an overview of the article; see MOS:INTRO. I suggest that you direct the editor to add a few sentences so that it does so.
 * I agree with you about what you said about the "Description" and "Facilities" sections. I did a little research, and looked at FAs about other museums, to see if there's a standardized format, and found that there is not.  As a GA reviewer, you may need to do that sometimes--look at how other similar articles are structured so you can make sure the article you're reviewing follows it.  I agree that the sections should be merged; I think that "Facilities" is the better choice, although that's just my opinion.
 * There's an error in the 4th paragraph, in the list of the journalists' artefacts--the phrase about the shirt. It's also unclear; does it mean that Subroto was shown the shirt, or that the shirt has a picture of him on it, or what?  Please ask the editor to clarify.
 * The last sentence in the above-mentioned 4th paragraph is also unclear; is there any information about why the artefacts were being collected and not placed in the museum? Was it because they were being prepared?  Please ask for clarification.
 * References: Notice Crisco (the nominator)'s references format. I don't use it myself, since it's too technical and I'm too lazy to figure it out, but it's a valid one that you may want to adopt for your own articles.  Totally up to you, of course.
 * When the sources are in a language I don't know like this one is, I state that I'm AGF that they're incorporated correctly and that they support the assertions made in the article. Then I suggest that the nominator get help from someone who knows the language.  Did you check if all the links work?

Excellent job, considering that this is your first GA review. You can use my feedback however you like in your review. I think that once Crisco responds to your comments, and everything is resolved, you can pass it. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 03:23, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I passed it. I think I did everything right, but I'm not sure. That went smoother than I expected. Whew! One down, ??? to go! --  Тимофей  Лее  Суда .  05:31, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
 * You did great! What we do next is up to you--again.  I can watch you review another one, or you can graduate and let you go out on your own.  I think that you're ready to graduate. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 20:10, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
 * If you think I'm ready, then I'm ready. This has been extremely painless and very, very informative! No wonder you are in such demand! -- Тимофей  Лее  Суда .  20:58, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Ah shucks thanks. It's been a real pleasure working with you.  You're my favorite mentee thus far!  Good luck in all your future WP endeavors, and I hope you review lots and lots of GAs.  I'll go close this now. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 22:20, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
 * When you close this, do you mind if I use the userbox User Good Article Recruitee to show that I was trained by the best? -- Тимофей  Лее  Суда .  00:36, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Ha ha, aren't you sweet. Sure, whatever you want.  Sorry for not getting to this earlier.  I got distracted (it happens a lot around here), and then it slipped my mind until your note.  Very little chance for distractions now, so I'll go take care of it now. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 16:55, 14 January 2014 (UTC)