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

 Status:  Abandoned ''

 Date Started:  2013-07-10 ''

 Date Ended:  May 7, 2014

 Recruiter:  Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) ''

Step one
Please familiarize yourself with Good article criteria and What the Good article criteria are not. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 20:41, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Doing so. One quick question, if you don't mind: do I need to notify you when I have completed a task? jcc (tea and biscuits) 16:17, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Done so. jcc (tea and biscuits) 16:30, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Yeah, the next step is the quiz, which I'll post now. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 18:06, 11 July 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? A: It should comply with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation. 2. What is required for neutrality in a GA? It represents viewpoints unbiasedly, giving due weight to each. 3. What does the GA criteria mean about a GA being "broad in its coverage"? Covers all topics, stays on track without wandering off, to metaphorise it. 4. What is meant by stability in the GA criteria? No current edit wars on the article or wheel warring. 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.  A: All of the above, I believe. 6. True or false: Stand-alone lists can be classified as GAs. Non. However, they could be classified as a featured list. 7. When does an article lose its status as a GA? A: When it (hopefully) becomes a featured article, the "next step up". Or when a editor requests a review and the article is found to no longer match the good article criteria. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 18:16, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Hope I did well! jcc (tea and biscuits) 19:55, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
 * You did great! Perfect score.  Upward and onward! ;) Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 21:17, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

First review
Jcc, you're my third recuittee (I'm so popular!), so I thought that, instead of repeating myself here, that I'd refer to what I've already done. Please read this:  If you like, I can model another GA review for you. It's up to you; just let me know. Oh, and don't bother putting a talkback notice on my talk page; I have this page watch-listed, so it's unnecessary. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 21:22, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
 * What do you mean by "modelling a review"? jcc (tea and biscuits) 10:36, 13 July 2013 (UTC)v
 * I do a review like in the above link, you "watch" it, and I explain what I do here. We can either use the above review, or I can do a new one; whatever you like. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 13:41, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
 * If its not too much effort, model it please? Else, I'll just look up top. jcc (tea and biscuits) 17:42, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't mind modeling a new review for you; the more reviews that are done in this process, the better. Much of what I say here will be repeating what I've done for BuzyBody.  I also think that the first review I chose for him really wasn't a good one.  I'm learning from this process, too, so I'll try and pick a better article to review.  I tried to choose the oldest and most appropriate article, but be warned that it's often true that you don't know what you're getting into until you're actually in it.  I hope this article will suit our needs and purposes: Ellen Southard.  This is a very different article for me, so it should be fun.  That's one of the best things about reviewing articles: you get exposed to new articles and information, and you get to learn new stuff! ;)  I may not be able to get to the review until tomorrow (7/22). Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 18:49, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Right! I am watching Talk:Ellen Southard/GA1 so should be fun to see! jcc (tea and biscuits) 10:50, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

I'll start the review now. 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. If you have any questions, please ask them here.

First, 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. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 17:07, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

Prose and source review
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 this article, I think that I'll separate them, since there are very few sourcing problems and it makes more sense to look at them at the end. 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). Often, I have questions that affect my copy-edit, so I ask them and based upon the answer, I either make the changes myself or request that the editor do so. 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.

There are pros and cons to choosing this article for our purposes. The prose is already strong, so there wasn't a lot of feedback to model, but you have been able to see what to do with an article that's already close to GA. I had to be pretty picky with this one. Would it be that all articles submitted to GAC were as prepared as this one. I'll get to the source review tomorrow. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 00:42, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Just to say that I'm following! jcc (tea and biscuits) 14:56, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

It looks like I'm finished with the review now. The editor hasn't responded to any of my feedback yet, so I'll go and ping him on his talk page, and then wait to see what happens. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 18:27, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
 * What is the timespan in which the editor should reply or else the nomination fails? jcc (tea and biscuits) 20:03, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Usually articles are held for a week. If he doesn't reply in that time, the article fails. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 23:21, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

As you probably saw, the nominator waited pretty close to the deadline to address my feedback, and then I got busy, too. He did a good job addressing my comments; if it weren't for the weak lead, I would've passed the article. As I said in the review, I'm waiting for him to improve the lead before I pass it to GA; again, he has another week. I also did some additional copy-editing. More to come! Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 19:26, 30 July 2013 (UTC

Hi, the nominator followed my suggestions and expanded the article's lead, so I passed it to GA. The next step, according to the Recruitment instructions, is modelling another GA review for you. I'm happy to do so, if you feel it's necessary. Or we can move forward to you reviewing an article. It's up to you; just let me know. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 16:28, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm happy to go straight onto doing one myself- any recommendations? jcc (tea and biscuits) 13:40, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Yah, I agree. The recruitment centre has suggested that recruitees review an article from this list: .  I'll watchlist it and chime in if I feel the need.  Just inform the nominator that you're using it for our purposes.  Good luck, and have fun! Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 13:58, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Step three: your review
I reviewed your GA review of Talk:Star Trek: Planet of the Titans/GA1, which is an interesting, cool, and good choice, and am ready with some feedback for you.


 * I agree with much of your review, but disagree that with the few changes you suggested, that it would be ready to pass to GA so easily.
 * I agree that the references are adequate, although the blogs (i.e., the Norman Spinrad site) and the production sites (i.e., Mania) wouldn't fly if the editor wanted to go further with it, like to FAC. I think you should point that out to the editor, because if you didn't, and he tried submitting it there, he may get a shock.
 * I agree about the images, and also accept the explanation about no image in the infobox. I wonder, though, if there could be more images added to the article.  What about, for example, these images:  (I can't imagine this article without an image of Roddenberry),  (since the shuttle is mentioned)?
 * I think that this article needs a much more thorough prose review. You gave just one piece of feedback, in the lead, and there really should be more.  Actually, I think that this article needed to be copy-edited before it was brought to GAC.  Here are a few examples:
 * In the lead: Following the success of Star Trek: The Original Series in broadcast syndication during the early 1970s and the popularity of the series at science fiction conventions, Paramount Studios intended the series to be made into feature film more than once. I'd re-word this sentence, to remove the adjective beginning the sentence, which although isn't technically grammatically incorrect, isn't best practice.  There are errors in the phrase "intended the series to be made into feature film more than once".  It breaks the tenses rule by mixing "intended" and "to be made".  There is no article in front of "feature film".  What does "more than once" mean?  You either need to tell us how many times or change it.  Then I'd make a suggestion about how to improve the sentence.  How about: "Following the success of Star Trek: The Original Series in broadcast syndication during the early 1970s and the popularity of the series at science fiction conventions, Paramount Studios made several attempts to produce a feature film based upon the series."
 * 2nd paragraph in the "Background section, 2nd-to-the-last sentence: Has contractions, which is unencyclopedic. I would advise the editor to look out for more errors like this.  Actually, much of the writing in this article is unencyclopedic.
 * I could go on, but I think you get the point. I think that it would be a big disservice to the editor and to the article if you were to pass it without requiring the editor to improve the prose.  If you don't feel up to doing the kind of thorough review yourself, I recommend that you provide the editor with resources--specifically, another editor you trust can do it.
 * I wouldn't pass this article based on Criteria 1B. I think that the "Production" section is unnamed, since the film never went into it.  I wonder if we could restructure this section and break it up into multiple ones?  For example, this article definitely needs a "Plot" section, which the 2nd paragraph of "Production" can go in.  I could go on, but I'd have to look at things more closely to make further suggestions.

What it all comes down to is that this article needs more than the cursory review you gave it. Different reviewers have different ways of reviewing articles, but I'm the kind of picky, nit-picky person who wants every article I come into contact with to be improved as much as possible. I enjoy being part of the process to help them get that way, and I enjoy helping other editors. Remember, you can leave or take my advice. I'm just not the kind of editor that passes articles just for the sake of passing them. Other editors can, and do, but that's not me. I hope that this is helpful to you. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 20:30, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Right! Should I tell the editor of this discussion? I agree, I should have been more nit-picky with the prose. jcc (tea and biscuits) 10:58, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I think that you should go back and explain that you're using the article for the GA Recruitment program (referring him to this page). Then tell him that I as your mentor made the suggestions about Criteria 1B, and that you should have conducted a more thorough prose review.  Then go ahead and do the prose review.  Let me know how I can assist. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 03:20, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I've done the above, par the prose review which I'll do when I've a bit more time! jcc (tea and biscuits) 09:44, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
 * The editor has complied with your feedback- should I pass it? What do you think? jcc (tea and biscuits) 14:15, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I included my thoughts about the prose over at the GAC. I just copy-edited the article, rather than force the editor to jump through hoops to get it passed, and had a few questions I'd like him to address before it's passed.  What's next for us?  I need to know that you're capable of giving a more complete and thorough GA review before I graduate you.  I suggest that I observe you review another article.  Again, if you'd like help, let me know. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 22:02, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

Step four: Second review
Do you recommend any articles, or should I just go for one I like? 2007–08 Arsenal F.C. season looks like one I'm interested in, but I don't know whether the editor takes GA Recruitment "trainees"? jcc (tea and biscuits) 20:47, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Although the main editor isn't on the list of those willing to have their articles reviewed by trainees, I think that it's okay if you choose it. Go ahead, but I have a few pointers.  It's a good idea to choose an article, when you're new to reviewing, about a topic you know a lot about, but it's also a good idea for the reviewer to not know a lot about the subject of an article, since it provides fresh eyes.  People familiar with a topic tend to not question the use (and over-use) of jargon and in-universe language.  I've reviewed many sports articles, and I've found that they tend to depend heavily on jargon and language familiar to fans and others familiar with the sport.  I suggest that you look out for that in this article; I haven't read it all yet, but I've already noticed that it falls into this trap.  Another issue with sports articles is that they're often too "newsy", and sound like a sports article in the newspaper.  Watch out for this as well.  And make sure you do a thorough prose and source review.  I didn't see too many glaring grammatical errors.  Good luck, and have fun. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 01:48, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the advice- I enjoy watching football but not all the "politics" behind it, so this should be an interesting review! jcc (tea and biscuits) 09:10, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I've just completed the prose review at Talk:2007–08 Arsenal F.C. season/GA1, and it will be interesting to see your views on it! Do you mind helping me out with the jargon picking as I can't seem to find much, but that's because I watch football, and so am used to the language that commentators and the like use (not to say that you don't enjoy football too, just it will be helpful to have an extra pair of eyes!). Thank you, jcc (tea and biscuits) 17:01, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

The only time that I watch soc--oh excuse me, football is during the Olympics, and other than that, the only sports I watch is--wait for it--figure skating. But for some reason, I actually like reviewing sports articles because it exposes me to new things. Most of these articles have been about basketball, why I dunno. ;)
 * I believe that I have finished my review, and I'll hand over to you! jcc (tea and biscuits) 20:09, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

The most important suggestion I have is to follow the convention at FAC and divide up your comments into bullet points. Your method, putting all your feedback in one paragraph, makes it difficult to follow and to respond to. I was WP: BOLD and divided them up for you. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 22:37, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

You stopped your prose review at the "Group stage" section. Does that mean you're finished? If so, that's fine, but it's customary to tell the editor and tell him/her that he/she has a week to complete addressing your feedback. I'm starting my review now; I may not finish tonight, but I'll definitely get to it by tomorrow. I also put a note on User talk:Miyagawa to tell him that there was more at the ST article to address. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 23:22, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I'll return to the review later, but I'm pretty sure I haven't finished yet! I assume that my prose review (so far) is an improvement? jcc (tea and biscuits) 10:09, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Then I will wait and add my two cents after you've finished. It's better, but you're missing some things, probably because of your closeness to the topic.  Sometimes it helps to have a reviewer unfamiliar with the topic, so he or she can catch jargon and peacocky terms.  I'll keep an eye out.  I think you can go and pass the ST article now. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 01:19, 20 August 2013 (UTC)


 * I still have some minor issues with the prose. As is often the case with sports articles, sometimes it reads like a news/sports article, with phrases like "opened their Premier League campaign at home" and "home fixture".  It also suffers from another common malady: the use of in-universe language common to the sport but unclear to those of us who are unfamiliar with it.  I'd suggest that the editor go through the article and try and "fix" these things, because although they don't make for glaring grammar errors, it would help make the article more clear.  That's often the trouble with reviewing articles about topics you know a lot about; it makes it harder to recognize unclear prose when you're familiar with the language that's used in sources about the topic--kind of a fish being too close to the water to know it's there kind of thing.  If you like, I could demonstrate what I mean by doing one of my more comprehensive prose reviews.  I tend to do very comprehensive prose reviews because you don't want this article to go to FAC and the nominator to say, "But the GAC reviewer thought this article's prose was fine!"  It's kind of embarrassing and puts a negative light on the GAC review process.  Plus, the reason we review articles at any level is to improve them, and that's what we're here to help editors do.


 * The other thing that makes me pause about your review is your statement under the "Broad?" section. Are you saying that this article has vandalism?  Now, I wasn't able to find anything in my few spot checks of the sources, but if there is vandalism here, this article should never be passed, and the editor needs to be directed to correct it immediately.  Please explain what you mean. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 04:20, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Ah. Well, I've clarified the vandalism- I put on the page "I mean "have had its fair share of vandalism", which implies that while it has been vandalised in the past, like many other sports article, due to the fierce rivalry in sports between teams, the vandalism has been reverted. I apologise if you mistook this as meaning that the article currently has vandalism on it that hasn't been reverted". I will also inform the editor of your feedback. Thank you for the advice. jcc (tea and biscuits) 16:52, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Ok, thanks for the clarification; I understand what you meant now. Whew! ;) The editor has asked if his copyedits made the article more clear for outsiders, and I'm going to go address that now. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 19:07, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

Update: The nominator of the football article has followed my suggestions, and as I stated there, I believe it's ready for it to be passed. Jcc, I'm still not convinced that you're ready to graduate from the recruitment centre, mostly because I didn't think that this last one was complete and thorough enough. I don't know what to do about that. I suggested that you do a more thorough review of the prose, but I didn't think that you did that. Do you need more practice? Do you feel ready to go a GA-review on your own, without supervision? Is this a valuable process for you? What do you think our next step should be? Lots of questions, I know, but I think they're important enough to be answered. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 19:22, 7 September 2013 (UTC)
 * What now? I think more practice- after all it makes perfect, but I don't want to have to ruin anyone's GA Review. What I suggest is a mock review, where you pick a GA-ish article, maybe from the list and I mock review it here- that way you can see what I'm doing and critique without have the bother of two reviewers for the submitter and I get more practice. What do you feel- if you think that this Recruitment has run its course and ended with the conclusion that I'm really not GA material, then I'm happy with that too. I know that this paragraph does not include my opinion and so I'll sign off with a "your choice". jcc (tea and biscuits) 17:20, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I haven't decided if you're "not GA material" yet, but I want you to be at the point where you can be a helpful GA reviewer, and not give articles easy passes. Too much of that already happens.  You're right, the more practice the better.  You may just need more help, and I was under the impression that's the purpose of the Recruitment Centre.  Of course, it's totally up to you; you may decide that there are better uses of your time here.  I'm willing to keep trying and to keep practicing.  I think that we should use actual GAs, since it helps with the long queue and backlog.  Remember, WP:DEADLINE.  We just need to inform the nominator and make sure he/she understands that the review may take longer to complete, and that there will probably be two reviewers.  I suggest, if we continue, that you contact the nominator and ask if it's okay that we use the article before you accept it.  I suspect that most reviewers would be fine with it, since they've probably already waited months in the queue anyway, and having more than one pair of eyes look at an article is always a good thing.  We should make sure that the nominator isn't in the Wikicup, since they're on more of a deadline.  At any rate, like I said, it's totally up to you; I'm willing to do whatever you like. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 19:17, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Eight then, I think that you should give me an article to do then, so I don't choose one that ends up like the Arsenal one. jcc (tea and biscuits) 11:54, 21 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Okey dokey smokey, as my late uncle used to say. How about you review Spock Must Die!?  It's in your interests (ST), it's short, and it looks relatively simple to review (although I've been wrong before).  If you agree, go ahead and take it, and then we'll start a new section here for discussion/feedback. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 03:55, 24 September 2013 (UTC)