Wikipedia:WikiProject Good articles/Recruitment Centre/Recruiter Central/Archives/TheQ Editor

TheQ Editor by Royroydeb

Status: In Progress

Date Started:9 April 2014

Date Ended:23 May 2014

Recruiter:Royroydeb

Step One

You first go through WP:Good article criteria and WP:What the Good article criteria are not , then I will proceed. RRD13 (talk) 16:42, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I had finished going through them. What do I have to do now? TheQ Editor (talk • contribs) 19:50, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Step Two

Now, I will be taking a quiz. You need to score at 80% to pass.

What does "broad in coverage means" ? (1)
Can an article be failed only because it is not well illustrated? (1)
What do you mean by "original research" ? (1)
When we can strip off an article of its GA position? (2)
Suppose in an article (regarding a person), vital information which defames the person is missing.Can that article be a GA? If not why? (2)
What does "stable" mean? (1)
Should a GA be free from red links? (1)
Can an article be failed if the references are in a language other than English (which you don't understand)? (1)

RRD13 (talk) 04:36, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Answers

Answer: Broad in coverage means that an article covers its necessary subjects.
Answer: No it cannot. But it is better if it is illustrated.
Answer: Original Research are facts based off your own experiences.
Answer: When an article reaches a FA position or if the article does not reach the criteria anymore.
Answer: It cannot be GA because the article would then be biased. An article has to include vital information for it to be reach GA status.
Answer:Stable means that there isn't edit wars. The article doesn't dramatically change opposite ways each day.
Answer: No, it should not be free from red links.
Answer:No it cannot. In that case, you can get a language translator.

TheQ Editor (talk • contribs) 16:48, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Only the no 7 answer is wrong. In WP:WGN, (1) Well written section - " Requiring the removal of red links. (Even FA and FL permit redlinks.)". You score 90% which means you have passed. RRD13 (talk) 14:00, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I think I got it. So what's next? TheQ Editor (talk • contribs) 14:36, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Step Three

You will find the list of nominations at WP:GAN. Though there is no rule which article you should review, but still you are always encouraged to review the oldest nominated articles. After you have read the article, you should replace the {{GA|~~~~~|topic=|page=}} template on the talk page of the article with {{GA nominee|...|status=onhold}}. While reviewing an article, you should hold the article for 7 days (during which the nominator will fix the issues you have identified.). Also, I prefer using the header 3 for different sections. You should quick-fail the article when:

There is a major problem with the article. For instance, there is copyright infrigments, poorly referenced, different variations of English are used in the article, multiple tags like {{POV}}, {{FACT}} present in the article. If the article has been peer reviewed and gone through a GA review in the past and the issues have not been fixed, then you should also do the same. For example, Talk:Compact fluorescent lamp/GA1, which was not well referenced.

An article should be failed when:

During the time, the issues you addressed were not fixed. It might happen also, that the nominator does not respond to them. I am not stating that they do it purposely, no. It might happen that they may be busy or faced some unforeseen problems. In such a case you should just "knock" at the nominator's talk page.

An article should be passed when:

Well its a silly point which I am mentioning! When all the issues raised by you have been fixed, then you should pass the article. While doing so, you should replace the {{GA|~~~~~|topic=|page=}} template in the talk page of the article with {{GA|topic=the required topic|~~~~}}. And also change the importance to "GA" in all other templates in the talk page of the article. In addition to all these, you should list the article at Wikipedia:Good articles → the required topic.

You can ask for a second opinion when:

When yo have doubts about something related to the article. For example, you are reviewing a mathematics related article and you have doubts about some formula (just for instance), then you can ask for a second opinion. RRD13 (talk) 14:34, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Got it!TheQ Editor (talk • contribs) 14:40, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Now, there arises a question, "Should I review an article related to a topic familiar to me?" or "Should I review an article related to a topic unfamiliar to me?" If you ask me then, well, I have mixed views on this matter. If you review an article with an unfamiliar topic, then ,(1) you will be able to gain information about that topic, (2)some questions will naturally rise in you, which you can put in the review (among which there can be some "silly questions" too). But if you review an article familiar with which you a are familiar, then though you will not go into a world of new knowledge, but at the same time you can clearly understand the mistakes in the article. For example, living in India, we are very much exposed to cricket and association football. So when I related a baseball related article (I have never played, nor anyone plays in our country, nor watches it), though I came to know much information about baseball, but at the same time, raised some "silly questions" (from a baseball fan point of view). But similarly, when I review a football article, I can very well guide the nominator - what fixes should he make, what faults are there. So in this case you don't fall in an embarassing situation. But again, it will be up to you, which article you will review. RRD13 (talk) 14:48, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

How should I review an article

Just as I have said earlier only, you should take up an article from WP:GAN and do what I have mentioned.

You can give a brief introduction of yourself while reviewing the article, though it is not necessary. You can use heading 3, (as in case of Talk:Sri Aurobindo/GA2), and I believe it will be convenient for both the nominator and the reviewer to find the problem. When you will be conducting your first review, I will advice you to inform the nominator that it is your first review.
Then you should check the links (whether they are dead or not) using this tool and in the url change the name of the article to the one you are reviewing. In case dead links are dound, the nominator should replace them with good ones. Then I look through the list of references. You should make sure that they are consistent. What I mean by consistent is that all of them should same. To be more precise, for example, if the author name is mentioned in one reference and no mention in other references, then you should ask the nominator to either add author names to all references or to remove that one. Then I go through the article. I read one paragraph twice and give my comments. I would advise you to review paragraph by paragraph.
After all the points have been fixed, I pass the article. A bot automatically informs the user about it. Before, passing the article you should crosscheck whether all the nominator has addressed and fixed the issues or not. How will you pass and what you will do then - I have already said. Now do you have any thing to ask? Then you should ask me. RRD13 (talk) 15:18, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Model Review

Now you should go thoroughly through the following, understand the review, check with the article, give me your thoughts, raise questions. RRD13 (talk) 15:24, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

My thoughts

@Royroydeb:I went through the reviews and pretty much understood them. But like, if it's a very small mistake can you just fix them yourselves? For example, in the article Sri Aurobindo, when you were reviewing Baroda, you noted that prakash should be capitalized. I think it would be a lot easier to fix some of the minor mistakes yourselves.TheQ Editor (talk • contribs) 18:18, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Royroydeb:I also have a different question. Is there a certain style or template you have to use when you review an article, because I also saw Chiswick Chap's review and his style was very different from yours. TheQ Editor (talk • contribs) 18:18, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sri Aurobindo Good Article Review

Hi, @TheQ Editor:, first and foremost, I would like to apologise to you, as I was on a wikibreak till 21 and could not attend this. For the questions raised, 1. Yes, you can fix them yourselves only, but you are encouraged to ask the nominator to do so. 2. There is no rule on which style or template you should use. Now, if you are clear with all these, then you may review any article at WP:GAN. Thanks! RRD13 (talk) 15:56, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Royroydeb:That's okay, I wasn't really active those days too.Anyways, I finished the review here. What do you think?TheQ Editor (Talk) 19:14, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Its correct. RRD13 (talk) 07:25, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

So, @Royroydeb:, what is the next step?TheQ Editor (Talk) 00:30, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Now start reviewing! Once you have reviewed a article under my monitorship, and I sound positive, then you have passed the test. And I did the same above only. RRD13 (talk) 08:06, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Okay @Royroydeb:I started reviewing Buffalo Creek (West Branch Susquehanna River)

Finished 2nd review

@Royroydeb:, I finished reviewing the 2nd article here at Talk:Buffalo Creek (West Branch Susquehanna River)/GA1. TheQ Editor (Talk) 22:10, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]