Lowercase sigmabot III (talk | contribs) m Archiving 1 discussion(s) to User talk:Duckduckstop/Archive 3) (bot |
Duckduckstop (talk | contribs) |
||
Line 128: | Line 128: | ||
::It's good to know that you're willing to undertake to make all the necessary edits when one of the nominations is reviewed. However, it is unfortunate that you did not see GAN as a collaborative process: your need to have an "accurate quality assessment" seems to overrule all, including finding out from the editors most involved where they felt the article stood—and many of them have significant experience at GA and are aware of the criteria and how well (or poorly) the article currently compares to them. If you want accurate quality assessments, I recommend that you go to a primary WikiProject and ask for a general assessment, noting that you think it might be ready for GA. I'm sure they'll tell you if they agree; if their assessment is a C, for example, then they clearly don't. B-class, the highest they can go without a review, will tell you that it's certainly close. I will be reverting some of your nominations for articles that clearly are not ready, or that are actively being expanded or otherwise unstable. I think that is clearly preferable to quickfailing them. Please note that the process is not "mine", and I cannot change it for you or anyone: it's not within my power to do so. Engaging with people on the [[WP:GAN|talk page]] to suggest or propose changes is the way to go. I do try to help it run as smoothly as possible, and that sometimes means posts like the one above when people new to the process nominate or review in bulk without fully understanding how GAN works or what makes a GA. [[User:BlueMoonset|BlueMoonset]] ([[User talk:BlueMoonset|talk]]) 19:11, 30 March 2016 (UTC) |
::It's good to know that you're willing to undertake to make all the necessary edits when one of the nominations is reviewed. However, it is unfortunate that you did not see GAN as a collaborative process: your need to have an "accurate quality assessment" seems to overrule all, including finding out from the editors most involved where they felt the article stood—and many of them have significant experience at GA and are aware of the criteria and how well (or poorly) the article currently compares to them. If you want accurate quality assessments, I recommend that you go to a primary WikiProject and ask for a general assessment, noting that you think it might be ready for GA. I'm sure they'll tell you if they agree; if their assessment is a C, for example, then they clearly don't. B-class, the highest they can go without a review, will tell you that it's certainly close. I will be reverting some of your nominations for articles that clearly are not ready, or that are actively being expanded or otherwise unstable. I think that is clearly preferable to quickfailing them. Please note that the process is not "mine", and I cannot change it for you or anyone: it's not within my power to do so. Engaging with people on the [[WP:GAN|talk page]] to suggest or propose changes is the way to go. I do try to help it run as smoothly as possible, and that sometimes means posts like the one above when people new to the process nominate or review in bulk without fully understanding how GAN works or what makes a GA. [[User:BlueMoonset|BlueMoonset]] ([[User talk:BlueMoonset|talk]]) 19:11, 30 March 2016 (UTC) |
||
:::i win awards for collaboration, and no, i do not see GAN as collaborative. it is a gatekeeper process, as broken as any on wikipedia. it stands in the way of quality improvement. [[User:Duckduckstop|Duckduckstop]] ([[User talk:Duckduckstop#top|talk]]) 19:30, 4 April 2016 (UTC) |
|||
== Your [[WP:Good articles|GA]] nomination of [[Yann Martel]]== |
== Your [[WP:Good articles|GA]] nomination of [[Yann Martel]]== |
Revision as of 19:30, 4 April 2016
|
|||||
This page has archives. Sections older than 5 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 2 sections are present. |
Thank you for participating in the Field Notes Meetup & Edit-a-thon 2013
Smithsonian Institution Archives Art Barnstar | ||
Thank you for your contribution in making the Field Notes Edit-a-thon such a success, I award you the Smithsonian Institution Archives Barnstar! |
A page you started (Wilbur J. Carr) has been reviewed!
Thanks for creating Wilbur J. Carr, Duckduckgo!
Wikipedia editor HelicopterLlama just reviewed your page, and wrote this note for you:
wait no that wasnt five categories
To reply, leave a comment on HelicopterLlama's talk page.
Learn more about page curation.
ThatCampPhilly Edit-a-thon Invitation
Please join the Wikipedia Edit-a-thon
at THATCamp Philly, September 27, 2013, to be held at the Chemical Heritage Foundation. Hashtag: #thatcampphilly Bring your own content to work on, or get an early start on Ada Lovelace Day by choosing from resources about women in science, chemistry and the history of science. |
GLAM Cafe invitation
Wikipedians are invited to the GLAM Café at the Chemical Heritage Foundation to meet, talk, and edit. We provide the space, the coffee, and the snacks: you provide ideas and enthusiasm! On the second Tuesday of each month, starting November 12, 2013. |
A page you started (Charles Neblett) has been reviewed!
Thanks for creating Charles Neblett, Duckduckstop!
Wikipedia editor Missionedit just reviewed your page, and wrote this note for you:
Thanks!
To reply, leave a comment on Missionedit's talk page.
Learn more about page curation.
A page you started (Amanda Fisher) has been reviewed!
Thanks for creating Amanda Fisher, Duckduckstop!
Wikipedia editor Carriearchdale just reviewed your page, and wrote this note for you:
Thank you!
To reply, leave a comment on Carriearchdale's talk page.
Learn more about page curation.
And the Purple Barnstar
This made me laugh. Looked up definition of equanimity,"a state of psychological stability and composure" was only on the internet. In real life I had a bit of an emotional melt down. But lovely Wikipedians rode to the rescue. Thanks again for your help and defence on this. User:Digitaleffie
A page you started (Justine Otto) has been reviewed!
Thanks for creating Justine Otto, Duckduckstop!
Wikipedia editor Maurizio.morandi-1970 just reviewed your page, and wrote this note for you:
Seem well done.
To reply, leave a comment on Maurizio.morandi-1970's talk page.
Learn more about page curation.
A page you started (Jeanne Goosen) has been reviewed!
Thanks for creating Jeanne Goosen, Duckduckstop!
Wikipedia editor Allthefoxes just reviewed your page, and wrote this note for you:
A ref in the lead is always helpful
To reply, leave a comment on Allthefoxes's talk page.
Learn more about page curation.
Thank you + invitation
Thank you for your contributions to women's football/soccer articles. I thought I'd let you know about the Women's Football/Soccer Task Force (WP:WOSO), a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of women's football/soccer. If you would like to participate, join by visiting the Members page. Thanks! |
2016 Art And Feminism Wikipedia Editathon @ CCA
You are invited! - Saturday, March 5 - Wikipedia:Meetup/San Francisco/ArtandFeminism 2016 |
Please join us at the California College of the Arts' Simpson Library on Saturday March 5, 2016, for an event aimed at collaboratively expanding Wikipedia articles covering Art and Feminism, and the biographies of women artists! |
---|
Recent GA nominations
Duckduckstop, you recently began nominating a large number of articles for WP:GAN, your first nominations in this area as best I can determine. In all 17 cases, these were articles you hadn't been working on: you added the nomination and then posted a notification that you had done so.
The GA nomination instructions are quite clear that if you haven't done significant work on the article, you should consult with active editors on the article before nominating: Nominators who are not significant contributors to the article should consult regular editors of the article on the article talk page prior to a nomination.
Are you planning to shepherd these nominations through the review process, making corrections and adding inline cites as necessary? You're supposed to do that, too: The reviewer will be making suggestions to improve the article to GA quality during the review process, therefore the review will require your involvement as nominator. Before nominating an article, ensure that you will be able to respond to these comments in a timely manner.
You cannot count on previous editors to do this ... unless, of course, you get their agreement that the article is ready for a GA nomination and that they're willing to respond to issues during the review. The same is true for mostly dormant articles, such as Elisabet Ney: if you don't address issues raised during the review, the odds are the article will fail.
All of your selections seem to be using the Objective Revision Evaluation Service as a basis for nominating, something I've never seen used as a reason before. Based on these 17 nominations, it's also not terribly accurate: your nomination of Cornelius Vanderbilt was reverted and the one for Martin Van Buren was quickfailed, while the Rogier van der Weyden article was characterized as "weak" and "underdeveloped for GA" by one of its editors. Elizabeth Catlett was scored at about 0.52 FA plus 0.39 GA, yet it has systemic prose and grammar issues, which should have been obvious to anyone reading it. Articles should be stable: instability is another reason for quickfail. Nominations of people who have just died (Andrew Grove and Johan Cruyff) are going to be problematic because of frequent edits due to their death; articles that are undergoing expansion (clearly seen in their history) should also not be nominated (Archibald Cox and Yann Martel). Articles should be ready to pass GA at the time they are nominated—while there is a large backlog, some nominations are chosen for review within hours of being nominated, when an article is interesting to a reviewer.
You currently have more active GA nominations than anyone by a significant margin, and all based on a novel criterion that doesn't reflect the actual GA criteria. I hope you will reconsider your methodology going forward, and withdraw all the ones that either you do not intend to edit at the review stage or are not immediately ready: undergoing expansion or otherwise unstable, tagged with problem templates or containing significant prose or other GA criteria issues, deemed not ready by active editors, and so on. Thank you for your understand, and I apologize if this is discouraging; I do hope you'll stick around and help Mary Mark Ockerbloom with the two nominations you've urged her to pursue. BlueMoonset (talk) 22:22, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
- i have reached out on the talk page to encourage the editors of good articles to answer your reviews. i can handle any articles you can review.
- the ores score seems to indicate that there is a large backlog of articles that very well could be "good", but for your broken process. you might want to fix your process, rather than throttling nominations to it. quick failing articles that very well could be improved is not a process improvement. but i see we will be thrashing resubmittals as at AfC.
- it is important that articles that very well could be GA are promoted, so that we have an accurate quality assessment. deterring editors from even submitting their work to you, is dysfunctional, and cannot stand. Duckduckstop (talk) 16:16, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
- It's good to know that you're willing to undertake to make all the necessary edits when one of the nominations is reviewed. However, it is unfortunate that you did not see GAN as a collaborative process: your need to have an "accurate quality assessment" seems to overrule all, including finding out from the editors most involved where they felt the article stood—and many of them have significant experience at GA and are aware of the criteria and how well (or poorly) the article currently compares to them. If you want accurate quality assessments, I recommend that you go to a primary WikiProject and ask for a general assessment, noting that you think it might be ready for GA. I'm sure they'll tell you if they agree; if their assessment is a C, for example, then they clearly don't. B-class, the highest they can go without a review, will tell you that it's certainly close. I will be reverting some of your nominations for articles that clearly are not ready, or that are actively being expanded or otherwise unstable. I think that is clearly preferable to quickfailing them. Please note that the process is not "mine", and I cannot change it for you or anyone: it's not within my power to do so. Engaging with people on the talk page to suggest or propose changes is the way to go. I do try to help it run as smoothly as possible, and that sometimes means posts like the one above when people new to the process nominate or review in bulk without fully understanding how GAN works or what makes a GA. BlueMoonset (talk) 19:11, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
- i win awards for collaboration, and no, i do not see GAN as collaborative. it is a gatekeeper process, as broken as any on wikipedia. it stands in the way of quality improvement. Duckduckstop (talk) 19:30, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
Your GA nomination of Yann Martel
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Yann Martel you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of LT910001 -- LT910001 (talk) 12:20, 31 March 2016 (UTC)