|
I am a supporter of the Good Article project as I feel it motivates editors to improve articles, and it gives readers a sense of confidence that an article has reached an acceptable standard that has been verified by an experienced user. Unfortunately, not all topics are equal, and some articles that are scholarly, comprehensive, huge, informative and educational may not quite meet the GA criteria for one reason or another; while some rather short or dull articles on minor or trivial subjects do meet the criteria. However, while the GA stamp does not always guarantee a scholarly and interesting article, it does guarantee minimum standards. And if another reader feels an article does not meet those minimum standards the article can be easily delisted. One of the pleasing aspects of the system is this ease of involvement so people are not put off by bureaucracy or any sense of elitism or ownership - it is fully in the collaborative community spirit of Wikipedia as a whole.
I both write and review Good Articles. Reviewing is a pleasant experience - the article is a pleasure to read because people have put work into it; and it's often possible, with the detachment of an uninvolved person and fresh eyes, to see where the article can be improved, and then to help the editors improve the article. This is a collaborative experience and is enhancing for everyone involved - especially when at the end of it the article does get promoted. Sometimes the experience can be less pleasant if the involved editor(s) are not helpful, or hassle to get the process done quickly with more regard for the GA status than with improving the article - thankfully these incidents are not common. The work involved is variable - with some reviews it can simply be a case of making a couple of suggestions here and there, and when they are done, passing the article, such as with Sid Barnes with the Australian cricket team in England in 1948; with others there may be a period of working with an editor to get the article to GA status, such as with Finnegans Wake and Imperial War Museum.
- My aims while doing a GA review:
- The first aim is to check that an article meets GA criteria
- The second aim is to improve the article - for it to reach GA level, and to be improved in general, even if not being listed
- The third aim is for the GA review to be a beneficial experience for those involved - if nominators and significant contributors are not distressed by the process they are more likely to improve other articles to GA status, and if they can see what needs to be done to bring an article to GA status, it makes the next GA review easier for all concerned.
- The fourth aim is to be reasonable with expectations; while I am prepared to offer people an opportunity to clean and improve an article that is significantly below GA criteria, this should be done with a clear notice that the work may not result in a GA listing; and while I am prepared to extend time limits if development is positive, if there comes a point at which the ratio of effort to improvement is disproportionate I will close the review.
Each review is different and brings its own problems to overcome. Some reviews can be fairly quick, others take a long time. Small, discrete topics like albums, especially the less important albums, are easier to do than articles on the band that made the album. The more important the topic, and the more complex and sprawling it is, the more difficult it is to get a well balanced and satisfying article.
Typical stages of a review:
- Initial look. The article should look organised and tidy, without a mass of images and infoboxes, and with a decent amount of readable and correct text in appropriate sections. There shouldn't be any maintenance tags or sections which are mainly lists. It should be a reasonably attractive page that both invites and reassures the reader. It should look like an encyclopedia page. There should be a decent amount of citations (more is better than less), and if there are paragraphs, and especially sections, which are unsourced, this may be cause for concern. A glance at the reference list should show some reliable sources. Size is relative, though if the article is very short a reader might wonder if there is enough material to satisfy their curiosity, and if the article is very short, yet complete, a reader might wonder why the material is not kept in context in a parent article. If the article can satisfy a reader's curiosity for that topic, and justify its existence as a self-contained unit, then it is appropriate for consideration as a Good Article.
- A quick read through to identify if there are areas that the nominator/main contributors can work on, to see if there are aspects that clearly pass GA criteria, and to get a general feel for the amount of work involved. As this is a first read, unless the topic is very straightforward, short, self-contained and simple, it is highly unlikely that all the work that needs doing will be obvious. Some topics need considerable background reading and research to discover how well the Wikipedia article meets up to the available knowledge.
- Start a list of how the article matches the GA criteria.
- Do some background reading and research. If the article is well researched, has broad, balanced coverage, and is well written, this shouldn't take too long - if I'm reading the same sort of information in other encyclopedias and reference works as appears in the Wikipedia article, and the sources I'm reading are not mirroring Wikipedia, then I feel reassured. If the article is poorly researched / structured / written / has an idiosyncratic approach and/or has too much of the contributors' opinions, then this will be revealed during the background reading - though it can take time with some poor articles, and may not be apparent at first.
- Read some sections with care. As many articles nominated for GA take approx 20 minutes just to read through with a 70% comprehension, it makes sense to focus on individual sections for detailed analysis. I will usually edit as I'm reading, correcting spellings, grammar, etc, checking and adding references, restructuring for clarity, removing poor quality or unnecessary material, etc. Trends I identify while doing this I will report on the Review for the nominators/main contributors to pay attention to ("check spellings", "go through and add sources", "put cites after punctuation", etc). I will link to appropriate guidelines for areas of concern that need attention (WP:Captions, WP:Lead, etc), and open discussions on areas that I'm not sure about. I will also raise general comments on improving the article that are outside the GA criteria, making it clear that the improvements are not needed for GA listing, but are for advice only.
- Check sources to see that they support what has been said in the article. I don't read all the sources, but I will check enough to be satisfied. If I read, say, 10% of the sources at random and they all hold up, I'm happy. If I find one mistake, then I will read more sources, if I find two mistakes I will be inclined to fail the article - though that depends on the nature of the error and other circumstances.
- If the review is becoming drawn out with lots of comments, I draw a line and start a second list so it is clear what now still needs to be done.
- My intention is to help get the article to GA status, so I am reluctant to give up if we have got this far, and may get more involved in the editing. Most reviews it's a case of saying, I feel X, Y, Z needs doing, putting on hold, coming back and passing. But with others there is a bit more work involved!
|
