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

 Status: ENDED''

 Date Started: 2013-06-21''

 Date Ended: 2013-07-27''

 Recruiter: Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk)''

Step one
Please familiarize yourself with Good article criteria and What the Good article criteria are not. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 21:28, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

Hi. I have familiarized myself with Good article criteria and What the Good article criteria are not and am ready to take the quiz. Thanks! --BuzyBody (talk) 15:04, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

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

1. What must an article comply with to be considered a GA? 2. What is required for neutrality in a GA? 3. What does the GA criteria mean about a GA being "broad in its coverage"? 4. What is meant by stability in the GA criteria? 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. 

6. True or false: Stand-alone lists can be classified as GAs. 7. When does an article lose its status as a GA? Hi, Here are my answers. 1. The six good article criteria. 2. The article must represent viewpoints fairly and without prejudice; equal weight is given to all viewpoints. 3. The article addresses the main points of each topic while staying focused on the topic. Unnecessary details are not covered. 4. The article remains predominantly the same each day with no ongoing disputes among editors. 5. All of the above (e). 6. False 7. When the article is promoted to a featured article. Thank you. --BuzyBody (talk) 00:23, 28 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Technically, you got 6 out of 7; I was going for, in question 1, that an article must comply with the manual of style. I can see how unclear that question could be, so I'd eliminate that question if it made any difference.  Nice job.  We'll move to the next step now. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 16:37, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

First review
I think that having a mentor model a GA review is 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. Then I was asked by a fellow editor to review one of his articles, found that it's 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.

For me, 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. Unlike FAC, there's no limit in how many articles you can put in the queue, so I suggest submitting a few at a time. For this process, I'll follow the recommendations of the recruitment centre and model an GAC for you here. I'll use this space to explain what I'm doing, and be more descriptive about the process throughout the GAC.

For our purposes, I'm reviewing Kung Fu Hustle. You'll be able to access it through the article's talk page. I chose it because it was on the backlog list in the pink box at Good article nominations, and it seemed like a good example. Please watchlist it and follow the process. I'll record my intention to use it for the Centre, and try and explain more of what I doing than usual. If you have any questions, please ask them here. My plan is to start the review sometime over the weekend. Have fun! Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 02:03, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

More to add to the above: 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. Perhaps another way we can do this is for you to follow one of the articles I currently have up for review, so that you can see the process from the other side. I expect to address this review in the next several days: Talk:Children and Television: Lessons from Sesame Street/GA1.

I'll go ahead and start the review now. 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 Hong Kong cinema, but 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. The danger in doing that, though, is that you may need to spend some time doing some research. For example, for this article, I looked at similar articles: GAs about other Hong Kong films. (I avoided looked at other FAs, since I don't think that it's fair to compare GAs with FAs.) Unfortunately, as I state in the review, there are no other GAs about Hong Kong comedy films, so I looked at another action film. I also suggest that you look at the Manual of Style; in this case, Manual of Style/Film. I wasn't sure that the length of this article's "Plot" section, so I looked it up and found that it fits within the standard (400-700 words). I also looked up other policies and guidelines; depending on the article, I've found that it's a good idea to cite them to back up your arguments. One of the benefits to reviewing articles is that it helps you learn about policies and guidelines, which will help you in your own article writing and editing.

Regarding images: as I stated in the review, I'm a terrible judge of if images are suitable, or if they follow the policies regarding fair-use and free images. I suggest that if you want to learn about it, you get mentoring from someone else. (To be honest, the policies regarding images seem unclear and their enforcement arbitrary.) Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 05:08, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

Prose and source reviews
Notice how I structure a review. I use a level-3 heading; most of the time, I separate the prose and source review, depending upon the article. For the prose review, I go through each section and direct the nominator to make corrections, often by making suggestions, which seems to be standard practice, especially in FACs. If I want to make a point, or make a suggestion that I think will be educational, I do it here. I'll just copy-edit if the changes I want made seem un-controversial (i.e., typos or small grammar errors). I also tend to put the original version in italics, and my suggestion in quote--totally a personal convention to differentiate them. I bullet each suggestion.

As is often the case with reviewing GAs, the prose has more issues than I at first thought. Sometimes, at first glance, things seem fine, but when you dig deeper, more serious problems are found. As a result, this is going to be a more complicated review than I thought at first. That's always the risk when you choose articles in the backlog queue. If you're going to suggest that they do things like re-write an entire section like I've done, offer to help. Most editors accept your offer. Also direct them to resources, like WP:CIT for citation templates.

I'm not always confident that GA writers are experienced enough to follow more general comments, especially since this articles strikes me as being written by a non-native English speaker. That's why I offer to help them do things like re-structure paragraphs. My current FAC, All God's Children Need Traveling Shoes, the reviewer asked me to do some restructuring, but didn't feel that it was necessary to spell out what he wanted. You'll notice that I stopped going through each line and make suggestions, mostly because it would take too long. The state of the sections in question, while not horrible, need major improvements.

When I finish a review, I tend to ping the nominator on his talk page, and I watch the article. To be honest, I'm a little worried about this one, since its first GAC failed due to no response. That's the reason for the week deadline. This might have not been the best example for our purposes, but sometimes you gotta take a risk. ;) Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 18:08, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Completing a review
First off, BB, I'm sorry that I chose such a complicated article to review. Sometimes you just don't know what you've gotten yourself into until you're in it. I was unaware of the major issues involved until I dug deeper, and then it ended up taking up a heck of a lot more time than I thought it would be. Let's hope that you don't pick a mess of an article like this one your first time out. ;)

If you've followed the review, you saw that several issues came up. The reviewer did something I've never encountered before: he cut-and-paste the review into his own talk page! Then it became apparent that he was using the GAC process to get feedback on the article. Instead of reproducing it all here, I suggest that other than the GAC itself, you read these entries, which demonstrate the process: ;

After completing the review, assuming that it's been successful, follow the instructions about how to close a review. I tend to forget to update the classes on the talk page, so make sure you follow all the instructions. Sometimes I inform the editor. Also make sure you add the new GA to WP:GA, something else I tend to forget.

Questions? On to the next step! Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 06:16, 10 July 2013 (UTC)


 * I would like to read through your entire review one more time and then I will be ready for the next step. I will be ready by tomorrow. Thank you! --BuzyBody (talk) 18:38, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Great. The instructions say to model a second review.  Did you want to see another one, or do you think you can handle one on your own? Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 19:55, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Hi. I would like to see a second review if that is okay. This one was a little complicated and I just want to make sure I understand all the steps correctly. The way the reviewer cut-and-paste the review into his own talk page definitely confused me.

I do have one question regarding your review: Would you please explain what you mean about sometimes needing to abandon reliability for scope (this was in the section re "Is it broad on coverage"). I am just not sure I understand what you mean by this.

Also I wanted to mention the prose review helped me a lot in understanding how to write and edit better :)

Thanks!--BuzyBody (talk) 20:27, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
 * You're welcome, and I'm glad this has been helpful for you. I'm fine with doing a second review; I may not be able to start one until tomorrow.  I'm sorry that this review was so confusing for the both of us.  I'll avoid the backlog queue and try to choose one that's more appropriate for our purposes. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 17:04, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

Reliability vs comprehensiveness
I forgot to answer your question about reliability vs. scope! I'll do that now. A strict interpretation of Criteria 2, which is about verifiability, is that if you can't support a statement with a reliable source, you shouldn't include it. The trouble with that interpretation, though, is that if you followed it that way, there would be articles that wouldn't be broad enough for its topic, even for GAs. Criteria 3 in GAs is less strict than the "comprehensiveness" requirement in FAs (see note 4 in WP:GA?), but I think that it still applies for GAs. What do you do if you find a less-reliable source but you need it in order to make the topic comprehensive or broad enough? It depends on the topic.

For articles about pop culture topics like TV shows, movies, and sports, the only sources available may be less-reliable sources like user-generated and self-published webpages. If that's the case, they should be used, especially if the alternative is a lack of comprehensiveness. In our first review, I told the nominator to remove an IMDB reference because it's rarely reliable and it didn't support the statement it was supposed to, anyway. I can't think of a time when using IMDB is ever a good idea, but I've reviewed articles about games that the best sources are sites self-published by the manufacturing company, and I gave it a pass. Yes, those sites aren't the most reliable, but they may be the only option to provide information an article needs to be comprehensive and have enough scope.

I'd say let the editor, who I consider an expert since he or she knows enough about the topic to write an article about it, use his or her own judgment. Of course, that could mean that an article may never have the potential to get farther than a GA, simply due to the fact that they may not be reliable sources about it. They may always be sad, pathetic little articles that can never grow up to become FAs, but sometimes that's the way it is. IOW, some articles may simply never have the potential to be anything more. Other articles, though, have surprised me; for example, I thought that one of my first FAs, Stanford Memorial Church, didn't have that potential, but the more I researched, the more I found about it and it became, IMO, a gorgeous article.

At any rate, I hope I answered your question. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 21:40, 15 July 2013 (UTC)


 * You answered my question and explained it very well. Although I do feel sad for the GA that never gets to be an FA. Thank you :)--BuzyBody (talk) 01:53, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Review number two
For our second review, I looked through the queue. I tried to find an article that's been languishing there, but something that may be a bit more accessible. Of course, it could prove to be complicated as we get further along, but it's about a topic I know a little about--science fiction, specifically Star Trek, and even more specifically, Deep Space Nine. (I happen to believe that DS9, other than TOS, is the best ST series.) The nominator is an established editor, so we may have it a bit easier than last time. I hope. ;)

In point 2B, I state that I sometimes do a source review at the same time I do a prose review. It depends upon the article; I find that for the better-prepared GACs, I do the reviews together. Remember, I tend to do a general review with the template first, and then I get into more picky, specific suggestions. I have a question that came up during a spot-review of the sources, so I'm saving it for the review.

Regarding images: I freely admit to everyone that I'm not a good judge of images, so I tend to suggest that editors get a second opinion. Fortunately, you can get away with more with GAs. It's also why I tend to bow to the advice of others regarding images, even if I don't necessarily agree. BTW, it's okay to admit to your weaknesses, as long as you're honest about it and can point to other resources.

More tomorrow. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 22:35, 15 July 2013 (UTC)


 * I am hoping I can follow along a little better for this review after following the first review. Plus I do love Star Trek. My favorite is "Star Trek: The Next Generation". I love Captain Picard. And I totally understand what you man about it being okay to admit your weaknesses. Makes it much easier for others to help you so you can learn more. :) --BuzyBody (talk) 01:57, 18 July 2013 (UTC)


 * What is the article you are reviewing? I dd not see the title above and want to make sure I am on track. Sorry! --BuzyBody (talk) 02:06, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Oops sorry, I hit "save" before I added it: The Sword of Kahless. I have more now.

You might have noticed that I'm being picky with this article, especially with the prose, something I tend to do with better-prepared articles like this one. On a personal note, I'm pleased with myself regarding my feedback about images. It seemed spot-on, since the editor followed it! Perhaps, after all these years, I'm figuring it out! ;) This article is turning out to be a much-better model for us.

Also notice that I'm copy-editing more than in our previous review. Part of that is laziness, but part of it is that I think that what I'm doing is obvious. Most editors are fine with it. I also figure that at some point, demonstrating what I want is better than just telling them. The great thing about this article is that it demonstrates my point about reliability vs. comprehensiveness. I don't think that this article would pass at FAC for that very reason, and is probably why there are so few ST FAs. It also supports my own personal bias against citation templates. But that's another story for another time. ;)

Questions? Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 18:13, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I am finding the review of this article much easier to follow and understand. I am really glad I asked you to do a second review for me to follow. :) I am still reading everything and will let yo know as soon as I am done. Thank you! --BuzyBody (talk) 01:46, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

Third review
I've completed my review of the Kahless article. According to the instructions, now it's your turn. It's suggested that you pick an article from one of the editors in this list:

I'll supervise your review, and give you feedback as you go. Make sure that you inform the editor that you're using his/her article for our purposes. Good luck, and have fun! Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 03:28, 20 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Before I select my first article to review, I wanted to ask you about my choice to make sure you thought it would be okay for a first review. I would like to do Washington: A Life. I love history and have a degree in political science so I thought this would be a good choice. Please give my your thoughts? Thanks!--BuzyBody (talk) 20:46, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I think it's a good one. It's been nominated by an editor from the list.  Go ahead and claim it before it get taken by someone else! ;) Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 22:54, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

First I must admit I am both excited and nervous - more excited than nervous but I just do not want to do any harm to an article. I claimed the article and I think I did that correctly. I am going to use the same template you use (I am familiar with it & I like it the best of the ones I have sen). Here are my questions so far:
 * Great! Hey, no worries; one of the great things about WP is that you can always revert, and everything is fixable.  Good luck, and have fun.
 * Do I contact the editor that nominated the article on his personal talk page to let him know I am reviewing his article?
 * That's a courtesy, but not always necessary. Often, the editor is on the ball enough to watch it, especially if he/she is anxious for the article to pass.  If the editor responds quickly, it's not necessary.  For both the articles I reviewed for you, I didn't need to because both editors responded as I went.  I'm reviewing an article for another recruitee now (Ellen Southard); it's taken me two days to complete it, and the editor hasn't responded yet, so I went to his talk page and pinged him.  I suggest that you do the same.
 * Do I need to place any message box on the top of the article talk page regarding the article is under review?
 * Yes, you do. Just follow the GAC instructions (WP:GAN/I), which will tell you what to do.
 * Do I need to have my full review ready then place it on the article's talk page or do I do it in the stages I create it in?
 * It depends. I save after I state my intention to review, and then again after I fill out the template.  For my more thorough prose and source review, I do it in stages, depending upon how much time I have.  If I have to take a break, I say that I need to leave and when I expect to return, and then add my sig.  You don't want to lose work, which I've done and is such a pain! ;) Sometimes I save my work in a Word file to prevent that very thing.
 * Do I list my review here & have you look at it before I place it on the article?
 * No, don't bother. I have the article watchlisted, so I'll observe your progress. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 18:06, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks!--BuzyBody (talk) 00:30, 23 July 2013 (UTC)


 * I finished my review. By no means is it as comprehensive as I would like to be able to do one day but I do feel pretty good about it for my first review. Please let me know what you think. Thank you!--BuzyBody (talk) 02:08, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
 * And I've just finished looking at your review, and added some things, since I was asked. Notice that I added a few more things, only for the purpose of being picky.  Understand that while I would've done things a little differently, you did a fine job.  You were able to see some good things, and your feedback will help in improving the article, which is the real point in reviewing articles, anyway.  The article came into GAC very well-prepared, which is so nice when that happens.  For example, it didn't really need the kind of extensive prose review that I often do.  Very nice for your first review; I think that you're very ready to regularly review GAs. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 17:32, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

Thank you so much for your help Christine! I read your additional points and see why they were needed. Khazar2 addressed everything so I passed the article to be a GA. I really appreciate your help. Do I need to do any other steps? Have I "graduated" from the GA recruitee process? Thanks :)--BuzyBody (talk) 01:12, 27 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Nice work, BB! Yes, I definitely think you're ready to go off your own now!  You're a great student, grasshopper (I've always wanted to call someone that). ;)  This was very fun and I'm sure you'll do great as a GA reviewer.  I forgot one minor thing before: I noticed that the numbering got messed up, probably because you used the hashtags incorrectly.  I tend to avoid them because it really is easy to do that, and often it's done by another editor. Anyway, give me a shout if you need more assistance, and I'll probably do the same if I ever needed some editorial assistance with my projects. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 03:50, 27 July 2013 (UTC)