Wikipedia:WikiProject Good articles/Recruitment Centre/Recruiter Central/Archives/RainCity471

 Status: Abandoned 

 Date Started: 13 July 2013 

 Date Ended:  May 7, 2014

 Recruiter: Gilderien 

Hi Jackc143, I'm Gilderien. To get started, are there any particular types of articles you are interested in reviewing or writing or whatever else? Do you have any questions about the review process before we start? The key page for GA reviews is this one, which you should read and understand. This essay is also quite useful. -- Gilderien Chat&#124;List of good deeds 21:21, 13 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Hi and thanks for taking me on! I play the piano but I don't really have any preference as to what I review. The only question I have at the moment about reviews is: how do you tell how comprehensive an article is? I understand that GAs just have to be '"broad", not FA's "comprehensiveness", but how is it worked out? If there is any way to work it out?


 * Thanks, Jackc143 (talk) 15:04, 14 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Oh cool, so do I :) There aren't any hard-and-fast rules about how comprehensive an article has to be: the only one of my nominations that this has come up in was Talk:Mont Aiguille/GA1. Basically if you can think of a major facet of a topic that has been omitted, it isn't broad enough - I recently held up Talk:Parsley Peel/GA1 because there was no information on his death, for example.-- Gilderien Chat&#124;List of good deeds 21:38, 14 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Ok, I see. That's all my questions answered - but I'll probably have more soon. Jackc143 (talk) 10:58, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

Ok, so I'm going to give you a short quiz. If you get 80% or higher, I shall model a review for you. Please answer in the spaces provided.-- Gilderien Chat&#124;List of good deeds 23:43, 20 July 2013 (UTC)


 * I'm going to mark each answer out of two.
 * means good, no error and perhaps only a slight omission.
 * means mostly there, partly wrong or clear omission.
 * Symbol oppose vote.svg means mostly or entirely wrong.
 * To pass, you need 34 or more marks.-- Gilderien Chat&#124;List of good deeds 20:22, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

Quiz
Q1: Why will Paris, my latest GA, cease to be a Good Article?
 * A: My best guess would be it's undergoing a lot of content changes including an edit war.
 * My original answer was going to include it being promoted to FA status, but as I was specific and an edit war has arisen I suppose this is far the most likely outcome.

Q2: Can I pass an article if there are links which don't work?
 * A: Yes, there is no restriction that there must be no dead links in a GA provided the links are not bare URLs.
 * Well done, this is a common error.

Q3: If I want to include a quote from a well-known author about the place I'm writing about, is it acceptable for me to add the book (perhaps in a template) to a bibliography section in the references?
 * A: No, a work of fiction should not be put in (implying use) the biblography (what if the author's making everything up?). Use an inline citation for the quote.
 * Pretty good, although as a minor point the book would go in the bibliography if the author was using shortened footnotes style.

Q4: When might an article not be "stable"?
 * A: Per WP:GA?, an article might not be stable due to an ongoing edit war or content dispute. Articles can also be unstable due to extensive good faith edits, these should be put on hold per WP:GA?.
 * Good.

Q5: What is the perfect length for a GA?
 * A: There isn't one. It depends what there is to write about the subject, not how long the article is.
 * Good. Can every article become a GA?

Q6: If you expanded, say, Granite Peak (Montana) by 5xs, could you also nominate it for GA?
 * A: It depends what you put in it. If it becomes broad and passes all the GA criteria, then yes, but if it is expanded like this then no.
 * Are you saying that sometimes DYK expansions aren’t always as good as they’re made out to be? ;-)
 * No, I just wanted to make my point that articles should be considered for GA based on what they contain, not how long they are. I get your point though.
 * Yes, although if it were to be nominated during the expansion the review would need to be put off until the article was stable again.

Q7: Zennor Head is a GA. Can I add a PD-UK photo of a tin mine taken in 1926 to the article?
 * A: Probably not, unless the tin mine is directly related to Zennor Head (from a quick glance at the article I can't see how a tin mine would be closely related to it).
 * The article says "Zennor Head was mined extensively for copper and tin in the 19th century". How does this affect your answer?
 * In that case, a PD photo of a tin mine probably would be appropriate for the article, as long as:
 * It is of a tin mine on/near Zennor Head, not in Inverness.
 * It is relevant to the size and content of the article, i.e not a huge bit about the tin mine and barely anything on the actual subject.
 * Technically, it does not have a valid license - normally PD images would be ok but you would need to add a PD-US tag first because that's where our material is hosted.

Q8: Does it matter if the article mixes US and British spellings?
 * A: No as compliance with MOS:ENGVAR is not required. However, I would strongly recommend that English varieties are kept consistent in any article.
 * (compliance with MOS:ENGVAR not needed per WP:GA? Jackc143 (talk))
 * Symbol oppose vote.svg as per WP:WGN, "spelling and grammar follow an established system, even if you use a different variety of English" - this means that the article must be internally consistent in its spelling, but not necessarily using the "right" one - York could still be a GA even if it were written in en-us, and so different spellings would be treated as mistakes.

Q9: Could I create a Good Article on the 2012 Olympic Games? What about the 2014 Winter Olympics?
 * A: You can create an article on the 2012 Olympic Games (incidentally, its currently B-class). You can't have a good article on the 2014 Winter Olympics as articles about future events are inherently unstable: information is subject to change without notice (the 2014 Winter Olympics article's currently start-class).
 * All good.

Q10: Can one write a Good Article if there are no english language sources available?
 * A: There is no restriction that articles with no English sources cannot be GA/FA. In order to write a quality article, I would advise being able to speak the foreign language in the sources, as machine translations may not be good enough.
 * Correct, and sensible suggestion.

Q11: How could you determine whether, say, General Relativity is cited adequately?
 * A: The GA critera state that inline citations should be provided for all "direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons". As General Relativity is a science article, it should follow the scientific citation guidelines (per WP:GA?).
 * Good, and good pickup of WP:SCG.

Q12: Is an article "stable" if it keeps on getting vandalised?
 * A: Yes, per WP:GA?

Q13: What about if it was the subject of current litigation to the WMF?
 * A: No, being the subject of ongoing litigation probably means the article is either a copy-vio or a BLP-vio. Content may be removed without warning. GA-ing the article could also be seen as endorsement of the copy-vio or BLP-vio.
 * CORRECTION: Copy-vios cannot be good articles but other legal proceedings do not affect the GA process, per WP:GACN Jackc143 (talk)
 * - good catch.

Q14: Does it matter if the subject is non-notable when reviewing?
 * A: No, also per WP:GACN.
 * Correct.

Q15: If there are multiple different viewpoints on something, should we present them all as equally valid, or prioritise some over others?
 * A: More should be written about major viewpoints and less about minorities. The more reliable sources talking about a viewpoint, generally the "more major" it is if you'll excuse the very bad grammar.
 * Although this mark was borderline very good, you also have to take into account other factors, such as the age of the sources, relevance and citations of it, reputation of authors and a whole host of other things, including whether they are critiqueing or promoting a POV - there is plenty in the literature about Homeopathy, but all serious scientists regard it as nonsense.

Q16: Can I have a sentence ending [12][3][2][7][6] or should it be [2][3][6][7][12]?
 * A: I haven't been able to find any guideline on this, however having the footnote numbers in the wrong order just looks weird. If I found something like  this in an article I would just go and fix it per the GAN instructions (where reviewers are encouraged to fix minor problems in articles).
 * CORRECTION: The footnotes do not need to be in numerical order per WP:GACN. Jackc143 (talk)
 * But yes, I think as reviewer one might as well make these minor changes.

Q17: Can you accept sources "in good faith"? Why/Why not?
 * A: Per WP:GACN, reviewers need to check at least a substantial proportion of the sources to make sure they match the content of the article. The nominator may have accepted sources in good faith themselves.
 * Yes, although if a nominator hasn't checked their sources ...

Q18: Can I use any image, as long as it is either CC-BY-SA (or similar) or is already on WP with a non-free fair use rationale?
 * A: The image must be relevant to the article. It's no good adding this picture to this article.
 * Good. Can in principle any relevant image already on WP be used?
 * Yes, provided that it is either released under a free license (where it should be uploaded to Commons), or hosted on Wikipedia with a valid non-free use rationale.
 * I'm going to be ultra-pedantic on this one and say that it is not quite good enough for an image to have a valid fair-use rationale - to newly include it in an article one must write a new rationale for the proposed article first, the first one cannot be duplicated.

Q19: Do I require images?
 * A: The GA criteria state that GAs should be "illustrated, if possible, with images". Per WP:GA?, images should be provided if available with a suitable license.
 * CLARIFICATION: WP:GA? says if relevant images with a suitable copyright license are available they should be provided. However, the presence of images itself is not a requirement.
 * All good.

Q20: I have just created a new article, List of animals with fictional diplomas. What do I have to do to make sure it meets the GA criteria?
 * A: Lists cannot meet GA criteria, per WP:GA?. The only way to get a list to GA standard would be to re-write it into prose, otherwise it can be nominated at WP:FL
 * In principle that shouldn't be possible, but I will mark this as correct given that per this discussion it appears that "prose" lists have in the past been passed.

Q21: If there are no images in an article you are working on, but you find a Creative Commons licensed CC-BY-NC image, should you upload it and include it to help it pass GA?
 * A: You can, as long as it has a valid non-free use rationale. CC-BY-NC is defined as non-free content by Wikipedia as it is not a "free culture" license.  Therefore, it is subject to the same restrictions as copyrighted content and must be hosted locally on Wikipedia.
 * Good answer, this was (one of) the trick question.

Model review
By my reckoning, that gives you 37/42, or 88%! Congratulations. Now the next stage involves me modelling a GA review, and I'll transclude it here so you can ask questions about what I am doing. I was just going to pick one and begin reviewing it, but I think it would be more interesting and relevant if you were to pick it, so name an article currently listed on WP:GAN and I shall ask the nominator if they are ok with it being reviewed like this .-- Gilderien Chat&#124;List of good deeds 22:07, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks! Will it be OK if I don't pick one yet cause I'm away for tommorow and monday?  Also, I'm changing username to RainCity471 and because of that I have to clear up my userspace so the crats don't moan about WP:UP.  Sorry, Jackc143 (talk) 11:58, 27 July 2013 (UTC)
 * That is fine. Would you like me to move this page when you have had you username changed?-- Gilderien Chat&#124;List of good deeds 12:14, 27 July 2013 (UTC)
 * If that's ok with you. Thanks! Jackc143 (talk) 13:22, 27 July 2013 (UTC)
 * My rename won't be complete this weekend: too much stuff to clear up! I'll pick an article as soon as I'm back and will sort out the rename next week as well.  Sorry. Jackc143 (talk) 16:39, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

If it's ok with you and the nom I could try 2012 Christmas tornado outbreak. The refs are all online, which is good since my local library's in an office block at the moment... Jackc143 (talk) 17:00, 30 July 2013 (UTC)


 * I've asked, and the nom is fine with me reviewing it ... I'll begin the review soon and explain everything to you as I go along.-- Gilderien Chat&#124;List of good deeds 23:43, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Ok, thanks! Jackc143 (talk) 06:47, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

Unfortunately I have had to fail this nomination. Please select another GAN that you would like me to review :) Sorry about this...-- Gilderien Chat&#124;List of good deeds 05:21, 14 August 2013 (UTC)


 * It's ok. I'll find another one soon.
 * About your comments:
 * I see what you mean about the dead links, but they're not bare URLs so that's fine isn't it? Or am I missing something (probably)
 * There are some citations at the end of each row of the table. I think they have stats in as well.
 * I see the missing file and empty coloumn. I can't find anything on these in WP:GA?.
 * Sorry if I'm wrong. Rain City 471  (Jackc143) [talk] 10:43, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
 * You are right to query, but here are my reasons:
 * You are correct that dead links are allowed in Good Articles, but my concern was per WP:GACN in that because a substantial quantity of the sources were inaccesible, I could not verify a substantial quantity of information nor accept in good faith that there was no close paraphrasing.
 * My second point was addressed, which I saw although it was not noted at the review.
 * The empty column gave a clear indication of the article being a work in process. Whilst images are not required, if available they should be used. Having a no-longer available one indicates that images probably are available, but I cannot check its copyright status not knowing where the image is.-- Gilderien Chat&#124;List of good deeds 20:26, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I understand. Probably the best option in relation to dead links is just to WebCite everything.
 * New review: Lufthansa Flight 615? Rain City 471 talk 16:48, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Sorry about the delay but I was really busy for over a week
 * That should be ok, although I'm climbing Mount Whitney imminently. I shall be back in a few days.-- Gilderien Talk&#124;List of good deeds 16:53, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Cool! Have a nice time! Rain City 471 talk 21:00, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Sorry to have kept you waiting, but I believe you are ready to review a GA on your own. If you wish to pick an outstanding article, and translude the review here, I will provide guidance and comments.-- Gilderien Chat&#124;List of good deeds 01:05, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
 * It's fine about the wait (I've done some copyediting, joined a wikiproject and broken a high-use template). The model review I've picked will be/is transcluded below. Rain City 471  (whack!) 21:50, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

I'm afraid I'm on wikibreak now/immenently. Since I'm not sure if you're free at the moment, I've dropped a note at WT:GAN asking for someone to complete the review. Thanks, Rain City 471 (whack!) 23:23, 9 November 2013 (UTC)
 * That was the stupidest thing I've done so far on wiki. I could have just waited a few days until I was back. Rain City 471 (whack!) 19:50, 13 November 2013 (UTC)