Wikipedia:WikiProject Good articles/Recruitment Centre/Recruiter Central/Archives/Shoebox2

Shoebox2 by Figureskatingfan
 Status:  Graduated, with great success

 Date Started:  18 January 2014

 Date Ended: 16 March 2014'

 Recruiter:  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) 19:56, 18 January 2014 (UTC)
 * OK, have studied up and I believe I've got the hang of it (much of it seems to be just good common sense). Ready to proceed when you are. Shoebox 2   talk  21:35, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

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


 * OK, (hopefully) all done. Answers below in italics. Shoebox 2   talk  01:26, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

1. What manual of style guidelines must an article comply with in order to be a GA?

''Lead, layout, words to watch, fiction and... including lists? Can't recall how that last one is worded exactly.''
 * It's "lead incorporation". You get credit, though.

2. What is required for neutrality in a GA?

That the article present only the verifiable facts in a clear, dispassionate manner free of opinion or other authorial bias, and giving appropriate weight to every side of an issue.

3. What does the GA criteria mean about a GA being "broad in its coverage"?

That the article make an effort to cover the topic fully, while still retaining a tight enough focus on that topic to avoid unnecessary detail.

4. What is meant by stability in the GA criteria?

''That the article is not currently the subject of a major editing dispute or other potentially drastic content overhaul. Routine maintenance and random, easily corrected vandalism are OK.''

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.

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

False.

7. When does an article lose its status as a GA?

''When a reassessment is done and the decision is taken to remove it from the GA list. Otherwise, when it becomes a Featured Article.''

Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 17:19, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Nice job! Perfect score. Now we'll move on to Step three. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 23:22, 22 January 2014 (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. One way we can handle this is for me to review an article I choose; we can also go ahead and review Horrible Histories (2009 TV series), as you requested that I do previously. That way, we can kill two birds with one stone: you can observe me and go through the GAC process with one of your own articles. I suggest that we review your article; I've done the same thing with other mentees, and it's worked out very well.

Many articles languish for months in the queue, but there's nothing wrong with jumping to the front of the line, if you can find an editor willing to review it for you. I think it helps shorten the queue. Regardless of whether we choose your article or pick another one, I'll go ahead and 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.

Let me know how you'd like to proceed. Should be fun! Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 23:35, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Absolutely. I really like the idea of you reviewing my article as the demo; it sounds a really good way to get practical experience right out of the gate, on both ends of the process. When I'm deep into editing I sometimes tend to focus on the critique at the expense of the human element, so both the chance for experience as a nominator and the reminders re: assuming good faith here are appreciated. So are the links re: templates, I had been wondering about those. Think I'd like to use one myself, as a sort of guideline to make sure I'm covering everything while simoultaneously restraining myself from launching into an entire laundry list of 'helpful' suggestions. :)
 * I did think about queue-jumping when I originally asked you about reviewing the article, but as I mentioned there I feel like you're uniquely qualified to handle this particular review -- certainly nobody else has come forward with any interest in two weeks, so. Ready when you are! Shoebox 2  talk  02:03, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Sounds good to me. I think that queue-jumping is okay, since it ultimately helps those who are more motivated to get their article reviewed.  Be warned: I'm anticipating a busy weekend, so it may take a couple of days.  I'll try and start things tonight, though. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 05:53, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

Update: Shoe, as you already know, we completed the GA review of Horrible Histories (2009 TV series) as a model. It was quite extensive and exhaustive. And for both of us, exhausting! ;) I think, and I hope you agree, that it was a valuable experience and as stated above, an example of both sides of the GA review process.
 * Absolutely agreed. I feel like I've got a much better handle on the requirements of writing for an encyclopedia in general and Wikipedia in particular at this point. Also, a nice healthy residual paranoia re: sentence length and wordiness. Shoebox 2   talk  19:25, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

I have a few thoughts before we proceed, mostly having to do with you as an article writer. As I said during the review, your article has potential to be a FA. I've always thought that the GA review process is a good preparation for FAC, so when I review articles for GA, I try and make it as extensive as that process can be. When I submit articles for GA and FA, I try and be as prepared as possible. It's my goal for the reviews to be as easy and drama-free as possible. For FAC, for example, my goal is to only go through it once. Reviewers (including myself) love it when articles pass easily, like, for example, my most recent GAC. Actually, I'd like you to look at that review, since it demonstrates a very different style than mine; it uses another template and tables.

All that to say that my biggest piece of advice to you as an article writer is to ensure that your articles are prepared before submitting them to GAC or FAC. My personal pet peeve is reviewing articles that were submitted for the purpose of getting feedback and assistance in writing the article. It annoys me, but I like to help fellow editors improve their articles, so I usually try and help them. Remember that the purpose of both FAC and GAC is to get articles accessed as to whether or not they fulfill the GA and FA criteria. I suggest that you make sure your articles fulfill the criteria as much as you can before submitting them. Get editorial assistance beforehand; there are lots of places around here where you can do that. The best sources are fellow editors with specific knowledge about what you need. I was actually a good choice for the HH article, since my niche here is children's TV. For that article, I suggest that you ask an editor whose writing skills you admire to look at it. People around here are mostly genuinely helpful; just ask.


 * Oh dear. Let me assure you that my intent in nomming the HH article was never merely to gain feedback/assistance. In the course of my initial rewrite I had in fact already solicited and received feedback of that type from interested editors whose opinion I respect (the discussions can be found on the talkpage). They were very helpful and encouraging, and in fact were the ones who brought up GA potential in the first place -- more cautiously than I probably realised at the time. :) At any rate, after a few weeks of their help tweaking to bring things more in line with the MOS, and my own conscientiously close reading of the criteria, I was actually feeling pretty darned complacent about putting in that nom. To the point where (as you may have noticed) it was a slightly rude shock to realise how far off I actually was.
 * Since then, I believe I've not only learned a lot but gained needed perspective and understanding of the wider world of Wiki-requirements, as opposed to my own personal writing style and preferences... albeit that means I also now feel really bad that I accidentally stuck you with filing off all my roughest edges. :)
 * No worries, I wasn't implying that's what you were doing on purpose at all. We're all learning here.  The more experience you get with how to prepare and go through the review process, the better.  I don't think you're one of the editors who throw an article on GAC expecting the reviewer to re-write the article, which is what really annoys me.  I think it's great that you've gotten so much input; it demonstrates the collaborative nature of this project.  For all my areas of weaknesses, there are scores of fellow editors who can fill in the gaps and help  make the articles I care for better.  I love that about WP.  We're all here to help file off our rough edges, and to help each other become better writers.  I do wish that you had been better at ensuring your sources were ready, though.
 * winces* Yeah, that's deserved. I'm afraid referencing is always going to be the pill in my writing jam, so to speak -- rather like you and images, I'm not quite sure of all the nuances and probably never will be. Which is to say, I think I might really learn to enjoy this whole collaborative-environment thing. :) Seriously, it's nice to realise you're not actually expected to know/do everything. Shoebox 2   talk  16:15, 14 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Meanwhile, for the Sesame Workshop review... I did see it earlier, in the course of browsing quite a few GA reviews over the last while. I was actually going to ask you about the difference in processes, because -- and this is not at all to suggest your article wasn't deserving -- but as far as I can tell after checking several, this editor's GA reviews always seem to follow the same pattern: everything is perfect except a couple vague suggestions re: improving the lead; lead is improved; hey presto! GA. All within a day or so at most.
 * Of course, I'm now willing to concede that I and/or my perception of the process are likely the problem here. Even so, I rather prefer yours and the other more indepth approaches I've seen -- the idea of helping editors not only to meet requirements but make the article as good as possible. As you say, treat it as a platform for the next level, or at least give the editor something they can take away for future article improvement. On the other hand, I also totally understand and respect what you're saying about freedom from drama. There's a fine line between helping someone and hectoring (or humouring) them, I suppose, and it must become ever finer as the backlog grows. Shoebox 2   talk  19:25, 13 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Well, now that you bring it up... ;) I think that the reviewer in question picks easy articles to review (like mine, not to brag or anything) so that he can pass them with very little work. There are reasons why some articles languish for so long in the queue; sometimes, it's because they're long, or they're about obscure topics, or they're in such bad shape no one else wants to touch them.  I like a challenge, so I tend to review the articles in the backlog list, which are usually the hardest to review.  I don't like the template the reviewer in question uses, because it's clunky and confusing and it focuses on things that don't seem as important to me.  Again, that's a matter of preference; I brought it up because I wanted you to see that there are other options.


 * I see... *nods thoughtfully*. This all makes good sense. Shoebox 2   talk  16:15, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

Moving forward: the Recruitment Centre suggests that I model another GA review for you. However, I think that with what we get went through, which gave you a great exposure to the GA Review process, you can move on and review your own article. It's up to you; just let me know what you'd like to do. On a personal note, I loved learning about Horrible Histories. I've spent some very enjoyable moments watching some clips; I'm so jealous of you Brits and your TV! ;) Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 03:15, 13 February 2014 (UTC)


 * I'm so glad you enjoyed it! It really is the most ridiculously endearing thing -- and it only gets more so as you research further; the result, in fact, of some ridiculously endearing people being clever about it. As I mentioned at the time, it reminds me a lot of old-school Sesame Street that way.


 * I often say that oh, writing articles about children's TV can be so onerous, because it "forces" me to do research by watching YouTube clips. ;) I love the old SS stuff, too, but there are some real more-recent gems. I think that the years between the 35th and 40th seasons captured some of that old-timey feel.  Season 40 is one of my favs, with all the references to the show's history.


 * Hmmmm. Clearly I must set aside prejudices and check all this out. Thanks for the tip (and oh yeah, I know exactly what you mean re: 'research'!) Shoebox 2   talk  16:15, 14 February 2014 (UTC)


 * As for the next step... well, it's immediately going to be complicated by a touch of flu and a fairly busy weekend in prospect. I'd also like to take a little while to consolidate what I've learned, and examine a few more GA reviews more closely. Meantime I had actually already been giving some serious thought to getting a few more opinions prior to putting in the FA nom. Given that I'm not really familiar with a whole lot of veteran editors as yet, I've looked up the Peer Review centre and it seems like it might be the best idea. Will list it there, anyway, and see what happens.

After all that, though, I think I would like to try my hand at reviewing -- so long as it's a small article and you promise to be at hand to assist as needed. :) Shall we say early next week? Shoebox 2   talk  19:25, 13 February 2014 (UTC)


 * I kinda have a list of editors I depend upon for one thing or another, and they know that I have their back, too. Alas, some of them are no longer active here.  You'll get that same list as you go along, I'm sure.  And people are always willing to help out.  I saw that you put HH on at PR, which was good, but there's not a lot of action there.  I recommend that you ask a few people.  Let me know when you're ready to review; I can either choose one for you, or you can pick one yourself. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 00:09, 14 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Ah, thanks again for the tip. By poking around PR a bit I've managed to find a couple editors -- Ceoil and Curly Turkey, not sure if you know them? whom I think would be ideal, and left messages on their talkpages accordingly. As I say, this collaborative concept is growing on me. :) Meanwhile, over the weekend I'll take a look at the articles currently on GA nomination and let you know either what I've come up with or that I'd rather you come up with it by Monday-ish. Shoebox 2   talk  16:15, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

Proposed first review
OK, having recovered from flu and checked over the noms I... think I'd best let you select the most promising prospect for my first review. :) I had been considering the Conan O'Brien article as something both interesting and achievable within my subject matter comfort zone, but on closer inspection it appears to be a drive-by nom, so. Would appreciate any input you could provide. Shoebox 2   talk  15:58, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I see what you mean. Although it's the only article submitted to GAC by its nominator, he's new to editing and has never edited this article.  Even though Conan O'Brien deserves a good article about him (and even a FA!), I'm not sure it's a good idea for you to tackle it for your first review.  Unless, of course, you want a challenge.  I looked at some other articles in the queue; what do you think of this one: Artifact (film).  It's not exactly in your fieldhouse, but it's still within the Media and drama section and it may be a good experience for you to work on something a little different than what you're used to.  The nominator has had some difficulty, but haven't we all?  He seems like a dedicated editor who's had some success in GAC lately, so I think he'll be willing to work with you.  I'll leave it up to you.  If you're committed to Conan's article, go for it; I'll support you either way. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 00:37, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
 * [returns from checking out Artifact article] Hmmm, yeah, that looks like a good alternative, thanks much for the suggestion. I actually got interested in the subject while reading the article, a good sign I think. :) OK, I'll take it. Should hopefully be able to start the process by later tomorrow afternoon. Shoebox 2   talk  04:22, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Proposed review of first review, please?
Well, I've done the detailed review... and am now wondering if I've over-done things just a tad. I feel like I've made helpful and improving comments in the main, but think I might've got a bit carried away in re: what's required for GA vs. what would be required in the ideal, if not actually featured, article. I'm especially feeling thus as the nominator hasn't so far responded except to say (about four days ago) that they'd be starting work on the article soon, but needed 'some serious help' to do so. Have since been increasingly afraid that I've accidentally bullied them out of believing they can ever meet the standards, and would greatly appreciate your level-headed intervention if/where needed. Thanks much, Shoebox 2   talk  15:52, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I already mentioned this review on your talk page, but I'll go into more detail here. As I said, I of course like your thoroughness. ;) I've looked at another of the nominator's recent GACs, and yes, your review is more thorough than he might be used to, but I think you've brought up some good points, especially regarding neutrality, the overuse of quotes, and redundancy.  I dunno, you might have overwhelmed him ("bullied" is too strong a word, I think), but it could just be that he needs to take care of a few things before tackling this GAC, or he may be busy IRL.  Nominators have 7 days to address comments, so I suggest that you give him that, and if there's no movement, ping him again.  There are times when nominators choose to withdraw a nomination, but at least you've given him or other interested parties stuff to work on in the future.  My practice is to offer assistance; at times, I've even done the improvements myself, if I have permission.  Remember that the goal is to help improve articles, not the addition of the little green button for its own sake. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 17:55, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Review #2
As per our discussions elsewhere, on talk pages and such, it's now time to move onto your second GA review. Both articles you've suggested, Western green mamba and Liliaceae, are fine. I think it's great that you want to challenge yourself and move out of your comfort zone and learn about more varied topics. The challenge for both of these articles, though, is that you really need to be familiar with the standard format of these kinds of articles. I highly suggest that you do some research and look at other GAs or FAs about the same topic. Good luck, and have fun! Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 21:15, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Just took a look at your review of Liliaceae; I must say, I am very impressed! What a great job.  Your review will go far in helping to improve the article.  I agree that it should eventually go to FAC, and I agree with some of your comments, including what you said about the Culture section and making the article more accessible to a non-scientific audience.  Shoe, I think that you're way beyond what we're trying to do here in the Centre.  Actually, you'd be such an asset at FAC, so you might want to seriously consider trying to review some articles over there.  As far as I'm concerned, even though you're not finished with this review, we could pass you here.  Exceptional! Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 18:36, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
 * [blushes] Awwww, you're too kind! That's my day made then. (And a lot of credit given to your patient coaching!)
 * I did feel a lot more comfy on this review -- it felt like everything I'd learned both in the course of writing and reviewing on Wiki just fell into place. I was also very conscious of the importance of the article, also the obvious intelligence and knowledge that had gone into the writing; really wanted to do that justice. Besides everything else, I'm seriously pleased to confirmed that I'm able to contribute on that level, that I can help significant topics get the articles they deserve on the Net's premier reference source. It feels lovely and useful... just too bad it isn't lucrative, but still, every little bit helps at the moment. :)
 * That said, of course the passing or not is up to you (I'll just stand over here and be hugely complimented), but regardless I'd think I'd like to try a few more GA reviews before I move onto FA ditto. Y'know, just to further confirm that this wasn't a fluke, and thus build up cred (if not actual respect) among the more seasoned FA reviewers. Along those lines, there are a couple other articles I think I may have been inspired to try fluffing up to GA standard, as well... and it would be nice to have an FA of my very own under my belt by then, but of course I'm still being patient with that, so. While I work on many things including my Zenlike calm, thanks again for everything, Shoebox 2   talk  01:21, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I think you're ready to go off on your own, but this being WP, I'd like to come to a consensus. If you agree, I'll go ahead and pass you.  Always know, however, that I'm here if you need anything; I'm sure I'll come to you for help to get my articles passed as well.  I don't think that it's a fluke and that you can do some great work here and make a huge impact.  As far as compensation, I think that being an editor has benefited me greatly.  It's given me more confidence as a writer and as a researcher, and has provided me with a lot of creative outlets.  I'm actually seriously considering going back to school to develop the skills I've learned here.  IOS, we get compensated in other ways here.  That being said, gain some more confidence with the GACs, do your own work, and learn as much as you can.  And have fun, of course!  Please let me know about closure here. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 15:52, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
 * OK, first off, let me not only thank you but reiterate how very much I owe your compliments to your kind and thoughtful coaching. Somehow I've found my way into the not only fun but really really cool part of Wikipedia -- the subset wherein intelligent and interesting people work hard to create something worthwhile -- and that's thanks to you, plus a few other good friends made along the way. Second... yeah, having given it some thought I do think I'm ready to strike off on my own -- albeit must admit at the same time that it's comforting to know you'll still have my back. :) Don't ever hesitate to ask for my help in return.
 * As for compensation, I do agree there are a lot of intangible benefits, most of which go along with the aforementioned cool stuff. As a largely self-taught writer I value the chance to thus come into contact with proper editorial assistance... yeah, it may sting at the time, but it also legitimately teaches, improves and ultimately challenges my skills, and that can never be a bad thing. Also, well, being unemployed at the moment (hence the rather cranky ref to compensation), it gives me a nice comforting sense of doing something purposeful, not to say keeping my brain sharp... I think, anyway. Might even look nice on a resume, eventually.  Shoebox 2   talk  02:38, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your kind words as well. I've thoroughly enjoyed our time together.  I really enjoy the social aspect of this project as well.  As tough as it can be for women here, there are other instances like this one that make up for the bad.  A lot of what I do here tend to be done on my own, since I tend to be attracted to obscure topics, so I look forward to the times I can work collaboratively.  Currently, I'm collaborating with another editor on Todd Manning, which is a risk for me for on so many levels.  I too am a self-taught writer; being here has inspired me to get some formal training.  Good luck with the job hunt and best to you as you contribute here.  I'll go and close us out here in the Centre now. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 17:17, 16 March 2014 (UTC)