Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Rosblofnari/Archive 7

STEM bios
In conjunction with Meetup/Ada Lovelace Edit-a-thon 2013 - Brown, let's create/expand some STEM bios on Oct 15th. --Rosiestep (talk) 04:03, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

Skagen
I've spend quite a bit of time on this one over the past few days in the hope that we can get it up to GA level. I've also written short related articles on Ulrik Adolph Plesner, Brøndums Hotel and Højen if anyone is interested in adding to them (although most of the sources appear to be in Danish).--Ipigott (talk) 10:56, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

Excellent. Too much of a headache from sinus problems right now to concentrate much but I'll try to look at them over the next few days.♦ Dr. Blofeld  15:55, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

Aalborg
Hahah compare this to Aalborg. Usually one of the earliest entries in a book encyclopedia.. They even steal our images. I wonder how long EB can continue to run, it's living on its name only. They've lost much credibility I think since introducing wiki technology and trying to come across as a modern encyclopedia. ♦ Dr. Blofeld  17:30, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

Chad problems
Unfortunately we've attracted criticism again for poor use of sourcing and facts Wikipedia talk:Did you know. I'm sick of this sort of thing and being made to feel like a shoddy editor. I think the problem is with the number of articles going through which we often don't have time to check over and examine the sources. Accuracy is very important and we can't afford to make such mistakes. The current number of articles on the RBN page is overwhelming and I'm sure we all agree its too many to be producing really good quality work for on each without feeling a little rushed. I'm partly to blame for this. The problem is that I tend to edit in bursts and produce a lot of content and then have some days where I don't feel like editing or checking sources so by the 5 days articles have been posted at DYK without me often having not even read them let alone checked over the final product. I think a few solutions:


 * a] For articles you want to nom for DYK write them in sandboxes. This way there is no instant rush to edit them within the 5 day period, we can take as long as we like. I'm not really a fan of writing in sandboxes but I think for the purpose of DYK it is necessary to allow time to write if you still feel enthusiastic towards nominating them.
 * b] Restrict how much content we add so the workload needed is less per article. Keep things clean and avoid heavy paragraphs and bloat, quality and concision is most important.
 * c] Impose a limit on how many DYKs are nommed in week and add a new column to our table which affirms that each source has been checked before nomming. the workload could be shared, Rosie checks says 1,1- and she writes R:1-10 done. Me. B 11-22 done etc. If we work in sandboxes and reduce the outout of articles geared for DYK then this would seem less daunting anyway. I just think that we have a responsibility to be producing accurate content with solid sourcing and we should be checking and copyediting our work fully before being nommed. I just think each of us are good enough editors to identify issues which a lot of others will pick up on them and that way we don't give them a chance to grill us over our work. I'd feel differently about the criticism if I'd had the chance to look over articles myself and not seen any problems. Any thoughts people? ♦ Dr. Blofeld  18:05, 24 October 2013 (UTC)


 * The criticism started on a non-Wikipedia blog. It didn't start at DYK. Your work is not this blogger's only target and this is not the first time this blogger has harpooned one your DYKs (see ). IMO, the blogger's criticisms of this and other Wikipedia articles are mostly appropriate; the failure to require minimal competence from contributors (and the good-faith coddling of incompetent contributors) is a serious flaw in the Wikipedia model.
 * However, you folks need to get your house in order. This is not an issue with DYK; it's an issue with all of your work. As I've suggested before, you are producing a lot of seriously substandard content through your formula of (1) pushing for quantity and speed in article production and (2) writing articles by committee, wherein each one of you contributes individual sentences that get strung together into something resembling an article. Blofeld's suggestion "a" (compose in sandboxes) is an excellent one, but "b" can be interpreted as "do the least work you can get away with", and is an encouragement for producing garbage.
 * I suggest that you start drafting all of your group-drafted articles in sandboxes, and that you don't move it out of the sandbox until one of you is willing to declare in writing that you have thoroughly reviewed the article and take full responsibility for all of its content (not just the first 5 or 10 references). --Orlady (talk) 18:48, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm also leery of point b). Concision is good, but once someone's made the initial mistake (confusing number of records of taxa with number of species), it just obscures the problem. A writer striving for concision might have omitted the clause about autonyms, subspecies, and forms, but the number of 2,460 (taxa, not species) would still have been in the article. Choess (talk) 01:48, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

You're confusing good clean concise content with lack of research though Orlady. There's a difference. And I hardly think all of the articles I edit are awful, in fact most I edit these days are for either GA or FA. Garbage is most likely going to result from a heavy bloated article than a clean one with a basic overview. As I've suggested an article limit, you shouldn't be worried about a mass output of half cocked articles anyway. Again I'm not sure all of our articles are "seriously substandard" but I certainly admit that articles I've been involved with briefly editing are going through without me having a chance to even read them much less full copyedit/check their sourcing and that I think it is making us liable for criticism which could be largely avoided. I still distance myself from the DYK process, but as it seems inevitable that articles we collaborate on end up at DYK, then I think we need to be more careful.♦ Dr. Blofeld  19:04, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

A problem, looking just now at one of the articles, is that content is often added and the source isn't always given for some chunks of sentences. If it is translated (badly) that makes it even more difficult to chase up where it came from if you don't edit the article yourself. I think unless I only solely an article I'll never be 100% on it. Perhaps Nvv you could cite all your sentences and they can be checked if you're translating and then removed if oversourced once checked?♦ Dr. Blofeld  19:19, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

RBN is a great project workplace. We suggest various articles and talk about improving them. We strive to improve global coverage through our A-Z self-challenge. We communicate respectfully with each other. We trust that RBN contributors have added content and sourcing which meet the quality requirements of an encyclopedia. It's a great writing community. I don't need to belabor the blogger's criticisms and I am sure that all of our articles aren't "seriously substandard". None of us wants to be framed as a shoddy editor. But we do need take ownership of writing errors. And we need to give greater attention to article quality and article cohesion. This can only occur if we decrease the number of articles produced by RBN each month. What if each of us suggests only 1 article per week? And if you want to work on additional ones, it'll be outside the scope of RBN. I like the idea of adding a column stating who double-checked what (i.e. I reviewed the History section); who did the final c/e; who finalized the lede. I'm also in favor of sandboxing an article if you intend to nom it; this totally avoids the 5 days requirement. Nvv has yet to respond here, but after he does, let's agree to some changes and put them in place for the remainder of 2013. We can reassess in January. --Rosiestep (talk) 05:05, 25 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Blog observation is unfortunate. Any way, Rosie's suggestion for checking is fine and let us move to the sandbox mode as we started our initial collaboration. I feel we should totally avoid using translated text in our RBN. As DR.B has said, many of our problems of sourcing have arisen out of this issue.-- Nvvchar . 05:52, 25 October 2013 (UTC)


 * I strongly endorse Dr Blofeld's proposal for the RBN group to build articles in sandboxes rather than in mainspace, to that proposal I would only add that I think all three of you should agree that an article is ready to be moved into mainspace before doing so. These steps alone should go a long way toward improving quality control. I also think it's an excellent idea of Dr Blofeld's to check the bona fides of every source before nominating, this won't solve all the potential problems obviously but it will certainly eliminate one potentially major source of problems.
 * As to the proposal to limit the number of noms per week, I can't really comment on that but any additional means of quality control would of course be welcome. I'm sure the RBN group is more than capable of producing quality content - perhaps all that has been lacking up to now is an effective system for ensuring it. Gatoclass (talk) 07:00, 25 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Trust, but verify

We have worked on a mutual trust basis. But I acknowledge that several of our past articles have had quality issues and that we can't always be sure if the content or references each has added are satisfactory. Now that we're fully aware of the problem I propose that we steadily go through our past articles and ensure that they're satisfactory before creating any more. This proves that we do care about quality and are willing to adapt for the better. Trust, but verify. --Rosiestep (talk) 01:53, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

I agree. Will start verifying.-- Nvvchar . 04:25, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

Yes, great idea. but steadily, otherwise it is too much of a headache. But let's please copy articles back into sandboxes and the changes can take place there and we can add annotated notes and what needs to change within the article. Detailed tables give me a headache but if you do but them at the top of the articles in the sandboxes this would be easier to follow than on the main page here. Please move the review and article to WikiProject Rosblofnari/Cassava production in Nigeria. What would be helpful Nvv is if you could try to cite every sentence/paragraph where you got the info from so I can check on easily. Otherwise I don't even know where to begin to start.♦ Dr. Blofeld  09:57, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

Yes, steadily. I made the move for Cassava production in Nigeria. I also added a new section on the project page for "Current audits"; it's right under "Current articles" so it's easy to see. --Rosiestep (talk) 14:24, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

3 or 4 a week of our past articles should be OK unless you think that's too much. 1 every couple of days is fine by me. Nvv can you also keep track of what is currently being reviewed at the bottom of WikiProject Rosblofnari/Audit as the reviews are taking place? That way we'll be able to minor progress and edit new reviews and won't have to keep posting here everytime a review is opened. For me priority for the next few weeks should really be reviewing our past stuff and keep the new stuff posted here to a minimum. Once we've reviewed the October stuff, I think we should "very steadily" work through the older DYKs, but the current month is priority for now.♦ Dr. Blofeld  17:56, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

Moving articles from sandbox
As I have the tools, I'll move the articles from sandbox. Drop me a note or let me know on the RBN page. --Rosiestep (talk) 14:13, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Checking new articles
Sadly the time it takes to check through Nvv's work and make corrections I could have probably written the text myself and used wider sourcing. I've only checked source 1, 5 and 6 of the DR Congo park and it's taken a whole hour. Lots of minor problems with paraphrasing of the sources, slight misinterpretations of the source, typos, source not verifying the info, the Unesco source stated a different river etc. I've always enjoyed working with you Nvv and your spirit and enthusiasm for wikipedia is infectious but in all honesty I don't know how productive it is to continue the collaboration if we can't have a mutual trust for each others work. Neither Rosie or I should be having to put in a lot of time to check up on everything and copyedit and I'm only trying to continue to work with you here because I love you and don't want to see a nasty investigation into your work here and we share a mutual love for going through the A-Z of countries and tackling systematic bias. A lot of the content you generate is fine and your work ethic here is second to none, but it is the extent of the minor problems and your reading/copyediting skills which really concern me.

I'm happy to try to make an effort but I can't envisage myself checking scores of articles every week when I'd prefer to be putting the time into writing my own articles to GA in which I can take responsibility for what is written. Add the fact that if I try to produce an article here and then you add to it and it has to be checked, it's not something I want to do further. If you continue to work alone, however, it's only a matter of time before somebody will start picking on you and trying to get you banned from DYK which I really don't want to see. But I'm being honest here that I can't see a way forward as a group collaboration which is really efficient and productive because if it takes me 2 hours to take your work fully, and then doing my own research and work on top of it for smaller scale articles it's time I don't have to be spending on such articles. Everybody makes mistakes of course but having checked 3 or 4 articles over the last few days it is alarming just how many issues I'm spotting, often basic issues which Rosie and I always trusted you to get right and always took for granted it would be fine whenever we nominated anything for DYK. The dilemma is that if we part and you continue writing and nominating for DYK alone you're exposing yourself to the critics, and I have a strong feeling will ultimately lead to an investigation and even a banning from DYK or writing on here, even if a lot of your writing is OK. I'll try in the meantime to make this work. I suggest we give this a go for a couple of weeks, but I can't find a way in which this can work without putting a lot of weight on mine and Rosie's shoulders.

Above all we want to be able to trust each other 100% and treat you and your work highly as you deserve to be treated Nvv. But if the basic issues keep cropping up in every article we collaborate together it really destroys the idea that we had of collaboration in the first place. I'd love to think that it was all just a product of rushing and doing too much at once, but the Congo article which was written after this took place has the same sort of minor issues the others have. What do we do? I'll always value Nvv as a person and a contributor based on his flat out content creation, but at the same time we need to strive to be as accurate and problem free as possible, and that should come naturally with being an experienced editor. I say let's concentrate on getting this month's articles checked first, perhaps then editing and checking the new content won't seem so much. ♦ Dr. Blofeld  14:38, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Support that RBN should not create any new articles until we finish the October audit. And I agree that we have to trust each other's work --phrasing, spelling, brevity, sourcing, etc.-- or we can't function as a writing team. I believe in us, RBN. I believe we'll get through this and we'll be better for it. --Rosiestep (talk) 02:45, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps if you restricted how much content you add per article Nvv like 1-2 kb and 3 sources or something then the articles wouldn't take so long to check. That would free up mine and Rosie's time and allow us to make additions. We'll try to find a way to make this work anyway.♦ Dr. Blofeld  10:06, 30 October 2013 (UTC)