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

 Status:  Ended Early

 Date Started:  19:27, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

 Date Ended:  01:07, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

 Recruiter:  Khazar2

Hi Aichik, thanks so much for offering to be a GA reviewer. In my opinion, the GA project, which brings articles to a reasonable level of consistent quality, is one of the most important initiatives on Wikipedia. Unfortunately, we often face a backlog because there's more people who want help with their work than want to help others with their work. Thanks for being willing to be one of the latter--it's a vital contribution to keeping things running.

As you'll find soon, GA reviewing is really quite easy, and this training is going to be a laidback affair. Mostly, I just want to point out some common mistakes (many of them mistakes I myself made in my first reviews, when this system didn't exist), and then turn you loose on a few reviews with me looking over your shoulder, and after that you'll be all set. With your copyediting background, I think you'll find this to be a breeze.

My take is that most bad GA reviews go wrong not by missing major errors, but by insisting on too many fixes not mandated by the criteria; this occasionally leads to a needlessly antagonistic review, and it drives people away from the process. It's important to understand that most GA nominators are not using it as prep for FA or for all-around fixes, and to say focused on the criteria at hand. For this reason, What the Good Article Criteria are Not is an extremely handy essay. If you haven't already, take a minute to read through it. You might also review some of the lesser-known MOS pages that are part of the GA criteria, especially WP:WTW.

Whenever you're ready, I've got a brief quiz below. Just in case that word gives you test anxiety, let me stress that the GA criteria are a somewhat interpretative affair, so not all of these have only one right answer. This is more to get you thinking about these issues, and to give us a chance to discuss them, outside of your first review. Just answer "y" for yes, "n" for no, or write more nuanced answers below as you see fit, and feel free to refer to WP:GA? and WP:GACN as you work. Once you've filled it out, you can click here to see my own answers with an explanation of each, and then we'll move on to the next step.

Thanks again for your interest in this! -- Khazar2 (talk) 20:13, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

Quiz
Can an article pass GA if the article...


 * 1. includes a dead link?
 * 2. makes heavy use of the word "claimed"?
 * 3. makes heavy use of non-gender neutral language, such as "mankind"?
 * 4. makes heavy use of the word "currently"?
 * 5. violates WP:OVERLINK?
 * 6. has no discussion of the childhood of a biographical subject?
 * 7. includes a paragraph with no inline citations?
 * 8. includes a sentence with no inline citations?
 * 9. includes a quotation with no inline citation?
 * 10. is only six paragraphs long?
 * 11. has four paragraphs added by a new editor during the review process?
 * 12. includes a photograph of a 19th-century British soldier with an EU public domain copyright tag?
 * 13. fails to present all viewpoints as equally valid?
 * 14. includes a red link in the text?
 * 15. includes a link to a YouTube video of unknown copyright status?
 * 16. has inconsistently formatted citations?
 * 17. includes a spelling error?
 * 18. is based on only three sources?
 * 19. includes the statement "The amusement park also has a roller coaster named Fireball", sourced to a blog with no obvious claim to expertise?
 * 20. has an amusement park as its subject, but fails to discuss one of the park's roller coasters?


 * Some suggested answers (click here when finished)
 * Since there's been no response, closing for now. -- Khazar2 (talk) 01:07, 1 July 2013 (UTC)