Wikipedia:WikiProject Good articles/Recruitment Centre/Recruiter Central/Archives/Buffbills7701

Status: Closed

Date Started: June 24, 2013

Date Ended: July 24, 2013

Recruiter: Wizardman

First things first, I would like you to review Wikipedia:Good article criteria and Wikipedia:What the Good article criteria are not, as well as Wikipedia:Good article nominations/Instructions. When you've read through all three, let me know and I'll give a quick quiz to make sure you understand the letter and spirit of what it has to say. Wizardman 15:24, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

OK. I'll message you back once I've finished. buff bills 7701

Finished! I won't be around all day, but most of the day I should be available to work on your quiz and other GA-related things. buff bills 7701 16:00, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Here's the quiz. The first six questions will be clear, taken from the above links. The final four will be more on the spirit of the process to make sure you understand it. If those aren't right it's no big deal as long as the clear ones are. For the true or false, if false explain why.

Articles do not need inline citations to pass GA if they list the references at the bottom of the page, true or false? False. While listing references are necessary, you also need to have inline citations.
There is only one style of inline citation allowed, anything else must be changed, true or false? Honestly, this is the question I had the most trouble on. I believe that the answer is false. All of the other article text can use general references if there is only one, and doesn't need any changing.
A biographical article focusing solely on one critical event would fail the GA criteria, true or false? True. A GA article should be broad in it's coverage.
Can a GA have a non-free image? Yes and no. If there is a fair use claim, then it would be yes. If there isn't, the answer would be no.
If one person has majorly expanded the article just before nomination, does it fail the stability criteria? No, unless if it completely changes the article. The stability criteria is mainly about there being no current edit wars on the article.
When can a list be a good article? (there's a more complicated answer, but for now just give the one in your readings) A list can never be a good article, instead, it goes through the Featured List process.
Can an article be too large for GA? No. As long as it's not trivial, a GA can be of any length.
How long should a GA review take? The average GA review should take about a day for reviewing, and then,(normally), a week of it put on hold so the editors can correct the article.
Do all sources and citations have to be in English? No. If I can't understand the article, I would request for a translator here to understand it for me.
Does an article need to be perfect to be a GA? No. The GA symbol is for decent articles, not perfect or even great.

You pretty much got it. For question two, false is correct, but to clarify what I meant by the question, some writers use the cite web and cite news templates, some use harvard referencing for inline citations, and some just write the whole thing out between the reference tags. As long as it's consistent it doesn't matter which of those above ways are used. Conversely, if there are many different styles then it can be confusing to the reader, so it is something to fix. Question six is right as well, but just to note, there are articles that are elements of both, namely television season articles, since they will have an episode list in them. 99.9% of the time you will not have to worry about that though, I've only dealt with that once in all my time. Lastly, Question seven is partially right. It is possible for a GA to be too short or too long, but only in terms of what's in the article. If a biography is 200kb for example, it probably goes into too much detail and would need trimming.

Next up will be a few reviews of mine that I'll post here so you can look over them. I don't use the GA list templates, but most do, and for a new reviewer it's highly recommended, so I'll try to use it in my next one so you have an idea of how it works. Wizardman 17:15, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

OK. Thank you! buff bills 7701 17:24, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Here's a couple of my better ones to look over, with a few notes:

Talk:Kevin Youkilis/GA3 This one has a mix both of errors to fix and areas that could be expanded. It's a bit primitive since it's an earlier review of mine but it gives you the idea.
Talk:Earle C. Clements/GA1 This article was in good shape to begin with, so there are not that many comments. Usually if you find less then that, either the article was particularly well-maintained or it should be re-read since something was missed.
Talk:You Are the One (telenovela)/GA1 Here's one that ended up failing. On the surface it doesn't look like much, but as I noted that's from a skim. Generally if I start finding far too many simple mistakes I just request a copyedit top to bottom. The article should be near GA status when nominated, so if it's sloppy I'm not going to point out every little thing.
Talk:Golding Bird/GA1 I took over this one 75% of the way through, but both mine and Philcha's review of this are worth reading (the subsections for each part like he had would likely be beneficial for you.)
Talk:Hertford College, Oxford/GA1 This is a quick-fail. Generally they are discouraged unless the article is clearly far off GA status. For the purposes of the training we won't do any quick-fails.

Read over those, and I'll get a GA review going either later today or sometime tomorrow so you can follow along, since most of the above are rather old. Wizardman 17:48, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Whenever you're available. My times are normally up to 10:00PM today, and anytime past 7:30AM (EST) tomorrow. buff bills 7701

The review will be at Talk:Jack Stivetts/GA1 and the template to be used is Template:GAList. Also note the toolbox that shows up on the GA talk page, the external links tab in particular should be checked to make sure links are not dead. If any are, ask if they can be archived, or if they are newspaper sources then the link can simply be cut. Wizardman 14:46, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Review is not complete. With an article where there is not much to fix, I put it on hold for a week and either pass when fixed, or fail if it's unchanged and the editor has been active. If the editor is inactive I give it a bit more time. Wizardman 00:18, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

OK. Thanks for giving me an idea on how to do it! buff bills 7701 01:48, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome. Now, did you want me to do another one to give you a close idea of how to do it, or did you want to take one on now? I'll still guide you through that one so don't worry about that at least. Wizardman 03:10, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think I'll be ready. You can decide what article I'll review first. buff bills 7701 12:27, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's better if you do so, just to get the hang of it. Anyone from here is preferred, which gives you a decent number to choose from. Wizardman 16:01, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'll do Anonymous (group), because I found that one the most interesting. Tell me when we can start reviewing it. buff bills 7701 16:21, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That's gonna be a tough one to tackle, but if you think you're ready for it then by all means. Just open up the review page on the talk page (where it says follow this link), noting that you'll review. The bot will take care of the rest and you'll be able to start. Wizardman 19:09, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Anonymous review appears to be fine. However, going through the C.A. Peñarol article, there's a few things that you seem to have missed. The Manyas section has a whole paragraph in italics, either that's a clerical error or something copypasted, and in either case that needs to be addressed. Also, "On 4 February 2013 new models were presented, with a totally black and totally yellow uniforms as alternative" totally is rather strange language to use for the GA, and that should've been asked for a change, and the note you had a question about actually isn't really gramatically correct either. The first paragraph of amateur era and second paragraph of professional era needs a citation as well. Bits and pieces of grammatical errors may be missed by one reviewer and caught by another like the middle, but the italics and unsourced paragraph should have been caught. The article seems to be GA quality so it's not major, but make sure that each parapgraph (sans the lead) has at least one citation. Wizardman 17:22, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

On the above, I'd like to see one more review before "graduating" you, just to make sure you're catching everything. Wizardman 17:24, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

OK! I already did another one that is currently on hold, it is Talk:WhoBob WhatPants?/GA1. buff bills 7701 17:39, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That one seems alright, but as Khazar noted, there was no reason to already fail Steve Bégin. A couple unsourced statements are easily addressable, and that should have been put on hold. You seemed to go from one extreme to the other compared to the Penarol review. This article was actually much better sourced, and the first one at least was referenced in the following sentence. Not every sentence needs a ref so long as the flow makes sense (i.e. if there's two sentences about a tournament, the ref can just be on that second one). Wizardman 17:37, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to try a different approach now since the first one didn't seem to work. I'd like for you to pick a current review in progress (ideally something on hold so you know it's nearly done), and analyze it for me, explain certain pieces and parts that are discussed. Maybe going that route will give you a better analysis of what to look for, given your success rate has been.. not good to start off. Wizardman 04:45, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]