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

Status: Graduated

Date Started: 00:13, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

Date Ended: 13:03, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

Recruiter: Khazar2

Ok, starting the page. Pinging @Jburlinson:. Will copy in some introductory material in a moment. -- Khazar2 (talk) 00:13, 19 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well, first of all, thanks so much for offering to be a GA reviewer--it's a vital contribution to keeping things running.

The first thing you need to do is make sure you know the basic policies for this. I'll trust you to brush up where you need to: check out the GA criteria, and click through to read any policies you're not familiar with there. (I'd particularly recommend brushing up on WP:LAYOUT and WP:WTW, which have a lot to remember). You don't need to memorize this, just be familiar with what's there so you can look things up later as you need to.

Equally useful is the essay on What the Good Article Criteria are Not. Sometimes GA reviews go wrong because a reviewer is too strict on a criterion, or imposes requirements outside the criteria; this essay helps guide you away from that. You'll find this balance as you go, though, and there's always plenty of people to ask for second opinions. Ultimately reviewing is an art and not a science, so even experienced editors will disagree sometimes. Don't make yourself crazy thinking there will always be a "right answer".

Whenever you're ready, I've got a brief "open book" quiz below. Some of these have more than one right answer; this is just give us a jumping off point for discussing the criteria. Just answer yes, no, or write more nuanced answers below as you see fit, and feel free to refer to WP:GA? and WP:GACN as you work. Once you've filled it out, you can click here to see my own answers with an explanation of each, and then we'll move on to the next step.

Thanks again for your interest in this. I hope you'll enjoy the process. -- Khazar2 (talk) 00:18, 19 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

OK. Super. I'll get started reading the material and give the quiz a shot. Thanks for getting going so quickly. Jburlinson (talk) 00:41, 19 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Great--no rush for any stage of this, of course, so take your time. -- Khazar2 (talk) 00:47, 19 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Quiz

Can an article pass GA if the article...

1. includes a dead link?

2. makes heavy use of the word "claimed"?

3. makes heavy use of non-gender neutral language, such as "mankind"?

4. makes heavy use of the word "currently"?

5. violates WP:OVERLINK?

6. has no discussion of the childhood of a biographical subject?

7. includes a paragraph with no inline citations?

8. includes a sentence with no inline citations?

9. includes a quotation with no inline citation?

10. is only six paragraphs long?

11. has four paragraphs added by a new editor during the review process?

12. includes a photograph of a 19th-century British soldier with an EU public domain copyright tag?

13. fails to present all viewpoints as equally valid?

14. includes a red link in the text?

15. includes a link to a YouTube video of unknown copyright status?

16. has inconsistently formatted citations?

17. includes a spelling error?

18. is based on only three sources?

19. includes the statement "The amusement park also has a roller coaster named Fireball", sourced to a blog with no obvious claim to expertise?

20. has an amusement park as its subject, but fails to discuss one of the park's roller coasters?

Answers:

1. includes a dead link?

Yes. Maybe good to point out link to nominator. If easy to correct, perhaps do it myself.

2. makes heavy use of the word "claimed"?

No. One of the “words to watch.” Suggest more straightforward word like “said” or “stated.”

3. makes heavy use of non-gender neutral language, such as "mankind"?

Yes – this is an optional part of the MOS for GA class. Suggest to nominator, but do not require.

4. makes heavy use of the word "currently"?

No. One of the “words to watch.” Be more specific as to time frame.

5. violates WP:OVERLINK?

Yes. Might be good to point nominator to MOS/Linking as a suggestion.

6. has no discussion of the childhood of a biographical subject?

Unlikely. This would be a major aspect. If there is no known information or it is not addressed by RSs.

7. includes a paragraph with no inline citations?

Yes.

8. includes a sentence with no inline citations?

Yes.

9. includes a quotation with no inline citation?

No.

10. is only six paragraphs long?

Yes – as long as long as article is sufficiently broad in coverage and addresses main aspects of topic.

11. has four paragraphs added by a new editor during the review process?

Yes – as long as the result meets GA standard.

12. includes a photograph of a 19th-century British soldier with an EU public domain copyright tag?

Probably. Is photograph 19th century? If so, it’s PD.

13. fails to present all viewpoints as equally valid?

Yes, as long as article maintains NPOV.

14. includes a red link in the text?

Yes. Red links are good for WP.

15. includes a link to a YouTube video of unknown copyright status?

No. per WP External links policy

16. has inconsistently formatted citations?

Yes. Might be good to point out inconsistency.

17. includes a spelling error?

No. Might be easiest to correct error myself.

18. is based on only three sources?

Yes, if GA standards 2, 3, & 4 are met.

19. includes the statement "The amusement park also has a roller coaster named Fireball", sourced to a blog with no obvious claim to expertise?

No. Blogs aren’t RSs.

20. has an amusement park as its subject, but fails to discuss one of the park's roller coasters?

Probably not – this would be a major aspect. If it is addressed by an RS, it should be included. However, if it were a massive park with many rides & roller coasters, it might be OK. Jburlinson (talk) 00:27, 20 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Some possible answers (click here when finished)

Done OK. I checked my answers and it looks like I got one wrong outright -- #12. I understand that it needs to be US copyright compliant, I just figured that a 19th century photo would qualify under the pre-1923 provision of the copyright law. But I guess it needs to be explicit in the copyright information for the image file -- is that right?

Also, # 20 looks like we took a different slant on the issue, but I'm thinking that we're probably on the same page. If the roller coaster were recognized as a major aspect, it would be a problem if it were missing -- like Space Mountain at the Magic Kingdom? Jburlinson (talk) 00:27, 20 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Terrific! You seem really on it in understanding the criteria, and I think you're going to make a great reviewer. The only one where I would disagree with you, and this is a close call, is #12. You're right that such an image would almost certainly be PD (as long as it was also published in the 19th century), but my understanding is that we're still technically required to tag it with a US-specific rationale (since the WMF servers are in Florida). I'll be honest, though--copyright law is where I'm weakest in my own reviews. As for #20, I think we're basically saying the same thing two different ways. I think you're quite right that in many cases a roller coaster would be a main aspect that couldn't be omitted; it depends on how much the secondary sources cover it.

So the next step would be for you to take a quick look at a few sample reviews, and then we'll do one together. When you have a chance, check out my subpage at User:Khazar2/GAR and take a look at a few of my more recent reviews (doesn't really matter which, but glance at some passes and some fails). My preference as a reviewer is to take care of almost all small-scale fixes myself if possible (copyediting, minor MOS stuff, etc.), so not everything will show up on the review page, but you'll get the idea. You'll see, too, that these vary from very very short to very very long, simply depending on the article's complexity and the number of issues I see. You can also take a quick look over some currently open reviews at GAN to see how others do it.

Then take a look at WP:GAN for something you might be interested in reviewing. A shortish article might be best for your first one, but it's really up to you. Let me know what you're looking at before you formally open the review, though.

Broadly speaking, the plan is for us to do the next review or two working closely together, and then I'll vaguely look over your shoulder for the next few to make sure you aren't some sort of cunning madman who's about to make a mockery of the process. Sound good? Again, we can do this at whatever pace your schedule allows. -- Khazar2 (talk) 00:42, 20 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

OK. The plan sounds like a good one. I've read some of your past reviews and all I can say is -- WOW. I'm in awe of your thoroughness, dedication, knowledge (of both WP and the many topics covered in your reviews) and diplomacy, which seems to be essential in dealing productively with some sensitive editors who are proud of their creations and seem to get defensive pretty easily. It's been quite an education just to read through these reviews; I think it'll make me a better editor as well as giving me a good idea of the job of reviewer. Should be mandatory for any wikipedian. I did have two or three random questions, though.

In your "Jefferson Davis" review, you point out that the phrase "known to mankind" should be rewritten for gender-neutral language. This was one of the items on the quiz and I had the impression that gender-neutrality was not a GA criterion. Was this more of a suggestion to the nominator? Would you have passed the article if this was the only problem and it was left uncorrected?
Re the article "Jack the Giant Slayer", you spotted some serious copyright violations. Should this article be tagged by the GA reviewer using the “Close paraphrasing” template? In general, should a reviewer add appropriate tags to articles or sections with problems? I noticed that the article on "Wars of the Roses" had been tagged for the same problem, but I get the impression this was done by another editor, not as a result of the review.
In the article for the film "Greed", there's an image File:Greed, 1924, 19 epilogo.jpg that is identified as a screenshot from the film itself, not a trailer. I'm thinking this would still be under copyright to MGM, since the film was issued in 1924. The image is on Wikimedia Commons, so maybe it's been checked by somebody with more knowledge of the particulars than I have. It's hard to believe that MGM didn't copyright the film. If an image has been accepted into WM Commons, does a GA reviewer need to research any further?
Is the notability criterion considered as part of a GA review?

I took a look at WP:GAN and noticed a fairly short article on The Projected Man. It's been pending for over a month. Do you think this might be a good one to get started on?

Once again, I have to thank you for your willingness to mentor me through this process. I don't think I could have found anyone any better. Jburlinson (talk) 22:08, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, that's very kind! It's really a pleasure to be doing it. To respond to your points roughly in order:

I'm really glad you mention diplomacy. Skins tend to be pretty thin on Wikipedia, especially in GA reviews, which are often the culmination of an editor's long-running project. I bend over backwards to keep things positive, but I feel like the effort saves me time in the long run by keeping me out of dramas. Also, GA reviewing is one of our best chances to recognize our most skilled volunteers for their contributions, so it's important it never becomes purely bureaucratic and impersonal so that we keep those volunteers. If there's just one piece of advice I'd like to pass onto you about GA reviewing, it would definitely be that!
Quite right on the "mankind"--I wouldn't have failed the article for that alone (or pushed it any further if the nominator objected)
You're probably right that tagging the Jack article would have been an appropriate move. Usually nominators are good about following up with those concerns, but not always, and I myself am bad about following up to double-check later. I appreciate the suggestion and may start doing it.
For the Greed image, you may be right that this needed more doublechecking. I generally just check to make sure a tag is there and not wildly implausible, but lately I've been trying to take more of these questions to my knowledgeable friend Crisco 1492. If you ever have concerns on an image, you might ping him--he's a specialist in this area and an extremely helpful guy.
I think the Projected Man article would be perfect. Go ahead and start the review whenever you like and proceed at your own pace. I'll follow along and if I have any suggestions, I'll mention them here. I was nervous before doing my first GA review, but there's no need to be, of course--there's plenty of avenues for reassessment if the community somehow disagrees (which happens to us all sooner or later). There's nothing you can "break". The only thing I ask is that you don't pass or fail it before I've had a chance to look, too. Thanks again for your interest in reviewing; I'll be excited to see you at work! -- Khazar2 (talk) 22:55, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

OK. Should I formally open "The Projected Man" review -- or would it be better just to do a dummy review and let you look at it first? I was thinking maybe I could put it in my sandbox for you to critique. Would that work? Jburlinson (talk) 23:25, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That'd be fine, but go ahead and formally open the review in any case--that way no other editor will claim it in the meantime. -- Khazar2 (talk) 00:03, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

OK. Will do. Thanks. Jburlinson (talk) 00:11, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

First review

I've drafted an initial review, which can be found at User:Jburlinson/draft Projected Man. What do you think? I made a few wording changes to the article -- a couple of typos and some changes in syntax. I didn't list any of these in the comments. Thanks for reviewing. Jburlinson (talk) 21:56, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That looks really good; you should move it onto the review page whenever you like. I'll take a look tomorrow (US time) to see if I can spot anything you missed, but it sounds like you're covering all the bases. -- Khazar2 (talk) 22:10, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I took a look myself--I made a tweak or two, but it's nothing serious, just the sort of thing a second pair of eyes sometimes catches. (Despite my best efforts, I would say fully 30-40% of the GAs I pass turn out to have some kind of spelling, grammar, or formatting error I miss that somebody later has to catch. Frustrating, but perhaps inevitable with this volume of material.) I think your review is dead-on so far. The UK release probably isn't "main aspect" enough for the article to ultimately fail over, but you're right to ask for it. Great call asking for the DVD information--I don't know that I would have thought to do that, but it's an important addition. Anyway, I'll keep following along; just check in again before stamping it pass/fail, or if you have any questions in the meantime. -- Khazar2 (talk) 01:12, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The nominator revised the plot summary with more detail and made all the corrections noted in the initial review. I found a little bit more about the UK release and added it myself. I think the article is OK to pass. I put the completed GA table template on my review subpage User:Jburlinson/draft Projected Man. Does it look OK? Are we ready to proceed?

If so, what else do I need to do procedurally, other than following the instructions at Wikipedia:Good article nominations/Instructions ? Thanks. Jburlinson (talk) 20:36, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I agree--go ahead and pass it. The GAN/I steps are all that are required, but I usually give the nominator a barnstar as well. That last step's up to you; I sometimes skip it myself if the nominator's been surly, unhelpful, etc. My default text is this:

{{subst:The Good Article Barnstar|1=For your contributions to bring [[]] to Good Article status. Thanks, and keep up the good work! -- ~~~~}}

Every once in a while, I nudge a user to go after a higher-profile article in their interest area (like, say, the Mystery Science Theater 3000 main article in this case). That's more to do with my interest in promoting the goals of the Million Award project than anything else; in this case it looks like MST3K would qualify for a Half Million Award. I think I'm the only reviewer who does this, though, so it can't by any means be considered a normal part of the project.

Anyway, great work on your first review! Ideally I'd like to look over your shoulder for 1-2 more to see if I can be of help, but I have total confidence in your reviewing at this point. Feel free to start your next review whenever you like, and conduct it however you like; just ping me to let me know what you've chosen. -- Khazar2 (talk) 22:02, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

OK. Thanks. I was thinking of reviewing the article for Ghost in the Shell (film) -- it's been waiting the longest in the film GA queue, since July 31. I'm no expert in anime or manga, in fact I know next to nothing about them; but WP is intended to be a general encyclopedia, not a specialist resource, so maybe I'd be a good person to review the article from a lay perspective. Sound OK? Jburlinson (talk) 20:49, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That'd be great--go for it. -- Khazar2 (talk) 20:56, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Second review

OK. Do you want me to set up a subpage for a draft before I post to the article GA page, like I did for the first review? Jburlinson (talk) 21:07, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nah, I say just go for it. I'll still be watching if needed. -- Khazar2 (talk) 21:29, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like things are going well on this one. I had some time to give it a better read, and made a few notes, but I agree with you that this is close to ready to pass; most of the points I made can be argued either way, so feel free to take or leave this as you would any other outside input. Hopefully the Chris/Lucia feud, whatever the origins of this one are, won't end up sinking it for stability. For some reason, WP:ANIME always seems to be in turmoil. -- Khazar2 (talk) 19:33, 10 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your edits -- they solved several nagging problems gracefully. I thought to give the whole process another day or two to make sure the disputes were all resolved and then do one more scan for grammar/spelling before passing. Absent any lingering arguments about content, I'm ready to pass the article. At this point, it appears that there are no unresolved issues of a serious nature, just some personal sniping which, though regrettable, doesn't seem to jeopardize stability of the article. I was wondering, should I just proceed based on the status of the talk page (which appears to indicate that the article is stable), or should I specifically ping the disputants to be sure there are no stability issues?

BTW -- I'm starting on another review for I'm Going to Tell You a Secret, which has been waiting for over 3 months. Jburlinson (talk) 19:51, 10 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I would let sleeping dogs lie and not ping the disputants. As long as they're not actively edit-warring over major chunks, this can pass. Even if an edit war does break out, I'd put this on hold for another week to see if it can resolve unless the article as a whole starts to rapidly change. The one issue I'd be sure to resolve before passing would be to check on whether that soundtrack cover is legitimate fair-use. We can wait for Chris's response or you can ask my usual image copyright guy, Crisco 1492. Anyway, nice work! Even I know that this is one of the most important anime films of all time, and it's nice to see it approaching GA. -- Khazar2 (talk) 20:03, 10 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and I saw that you started I'm Going to Tell You a Secret too, which is great. The article looks like a mess to me at first glance and seems to have lots of grammar and prose issues. This is probably one of those nominations where it's up to you how much weight you want to carry for the nominator. You can fix a lot of problems yourself; you can explain to the nominator how to fix them and have him do it; you can put it on hold and give the nominator a week to seek help at WP:GOCE or some related Wikiproject; or you can simply quickfail it if you find the problems are persistent and would take extensive work on your end to correct. Any of the four solutions seems to me appropriate; it's always a little painful to quickfail a nomination that old, but it also may be merited in this case. I used to be much more patient about copyediting people's articles for them, but it often meant I spent as much time on one review as I would have another 2 or 3, and I started to feel I was taking time away from more deserving articles. So it's really your call how you want to strike that balance. -- Khazar2 (talk) 20:12, 10 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

How about if I post something like the following:

Thanks to all who helped develop this article. There's a lot of good information here that I'm sure would be of interest to folks following Madonna's career. I see a number of issues, however, that need to be addressed before the article passes a GA review. Here are a few of these concerns:

There are many grammar and prose corrections that need to be made. I started doing this in the lead and came to the conclusion that my own copy-editing skills may not be adequate to catching all the problems. I'd suggest submitting a request to the Guild of Copy Editors. This is frequently done as preparation for a Good Article Review. Before requesting a thorough copy-edit, though, it might be good to consider the following issues.
One of the GA criteria is compliance with WP MOS on lead sections. The current lead is not so much a summary of the article as a selection of quotes from the text of the article.
There's too much copy-and-paste from O'Brien's Madonna: Like an Icon. This is sometimes acknowledged in a well-placed citation, but without in-text attribution or quote marks. Examples: Madonna "invited a select group of friends and co-workers to watch a rough three-hour cut of the film at a local theater in Notting Hill, and write their comments afterwards in a questionnaire", and "a full moon sailed over the crowd and the rain came down" (although the word "crowd" is substituted for "stage" in the original). Please see WP:PLAGFORMS .
The synopsis is quite lengthy and detailed, exceeding the rule of thumb of 700 or fewer words. Although this is not a cut-and-dried prohibition as to the length of a plot summary/synopsis, concision is important and unnecessary detail should be eliminated. The current synopsis feels almost like a scene-by-scene description.
After randomly sampling a few references, there are a number of instances of what looks to be original research or synthesis. It would probably be good to review all the article's references to be sure that paraphrase doesn't turn into synthesis. Here's a couple of examples:

From "concept and development": "She further explained that during Truth or Dare she did not have a family hence the mischievous acts with her dancers, unlike I'm Going to Tell You a Secret where she felt much balanced.[26]" -- Although the source does mention Madonna's family, it doesn't support the assertion that she felt more balanced at the time she made her newer documentary.
From "Background of tour"; "She incorporated the images from the installation in the tour, whose name was in reality a dig at Madonna's critics.[9][10][11]". -- None of the three citations supports the statement about the name being a dig at the critics. The link to the third cite is now broken, so it's possible that this source originally mentioned it. (The second cite doesn't seem to relate to the topic at all, being about a scottish bagpiper.)

At this point, we have a couple of options.

I could put the review on hold for a week, but I'm not sure that would give editors enough time to make all needed updates. In particular, it could easily take more than a week to get a copy edit through the process. OR
I could fail the article for now, or the nominator could withdraw the nomination. This would give editors plenty of time to go over the article carefully in light of the Good article criteria and the editing guidelines for reviewing an article for GA status.

Please let me know what you think. Again, thanks for your interest in creating top-quality articles for Wikipedia. Jburlinson (talk) 22:37, 10 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Good work catching the cut-paste issues. I'd recommend simply failing the article, as the problems are profound; I recently quickfailed another nomination of Indian Bio's for the same combination of copyediting and cutting/pasting (Talk:I Don't Give A/GA2), which makes me skeptical of his ability to fix them in a reasonable timeframe here. But it's up to you. No harm would be done in giving him a week to try to fix it, and with the help of a good GOCE copyeditor he might be able to do so.

It's a bummer to see another of IB's nominations with this problem so soon. Perhaps some sort of broader check of his work is needed; I may look into this later this week.

Anyway, whatever you decide here, I'm really impressed with your work. You're already a better GA reviewer than most here--kind, conscientious, and thorough--and I think you're going to be a great asset to this project; you've already dealt well with two problematic nominations between Ghost and Secret. I'll wait to formally graduate you from the mentorship (there's a barnstar, and cake and balloons) until these two reviews are done, but that's just the technicality part. In practical terms, from now on, please feel free to start new reviews whenever you like, and pass/fail them as you please, though feel free to ping me if you ever need a second opinion on something. I'll stick around to help you put these two to bed, of course.

Thanks for all the work you've been doing already--it's a real pleasure working with you. -- Khazar2 (talk) 11:59, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The pleasure (and the profit) has been all mine, I assure you. I went ahead and failed the article on Madonna, but I have question. Would it be appropriate to tag the article for some of the problems mentioned in the review, like close paraphrasing and possible OR? It seems a bit like kicking someone when they're down, so I'm reluctant to do it; but, on the other hand, I wonder if tags might alert the average reader to some of the problems and possibly motivate editors to address the issues.

As to Ghost in the Shell, it looks like all issues have been addressed, so I'm fixing to promote it as GA. I want to give it one more close reading, though, just in case. Sound OK?

Again, thanks for all your help and counsel. I couldn't have found a better mentor if I had searched for a year. I hope we can keep in touch and please don't hesitate to let me know if you ever notice me going down the wrong path. Best wishes to you! Jburlinson (talk) 20:46, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, tags would definitely be appropriate--I'd suggest a banner level tag for the close paraphrasing (Template:Close paraphrasing) and inline tags for the OR, unless you feel it's also a whole-article problem. I know what you mean about the kicking them when they're down feeling, but in this case it'd be best to flag this for other editors' attention. Close paraphrasing is one of the few banner tags that I think a group of editors regularly seek out and address, so someone should end up taking care of it.

As for Ghost in the Shell, I agree that it seems ready to go. The main aspects appear to be covered and the sourcing seems fine. The prose is a bit clunky, but that's an FA-level problem; we just need to worry that it's readable and basically correct, and I feel like it meets that threshold.

And yeah, I'll pop my head into your future reviews every now and then just to make sure you haven't gone mad with power.

And feel free to ping me any time you need a second opinion on anything. We'll keep in touch! Cheers, -- Khazar2 (talk) 20:55, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]