User talk:Corinne: Difference between revisions
Content deleted Content added
→Karma...: and ... |
→Karma...: ce |
||
| (One intermediate revision by the same user not shown) | |||
| Line 798: | Line 798: | ||
::[[User:Dank|Dank]] Well, first, thank you for asking. Second, my general feeling is that I'll work on whatever you need me to work on. Third, I'd be happy with those, or any others (just not certain topics I have no interest in such as sports, popular culture, business, video games, etc.), but I have a question. It seemed to me that the ''Hygrophoropsis aurantiaca'' and ''Telopea truncata'' articles were already so well written that I only made a few minor edits (and even one or two of those were changed). It almost seems as if I'm not needed. Will there be articles that need more copy-editing than those? Or are those minor edits precisely what is needed? I think articles on animals (and birds, and insects) are much more interesting than articles on plants and fungi, but I'll do those, too. I also really like articles on geology, mining, and environmental topics. [[User:Corinne|Corinne]] ([[User talk:Corinne#top|talk]]) 02:49, 17 December 2015 (UTC) |
::[[User:Dank|Dank]] Well, first, thank you for asking. Second, my general feeling is that I'll work on whatever you need me to work on. Third, I'd be happy with those, or any others (just not certain topics I have no interest in such as sports, popular culture, business, video games, etc.), but I have a question. It seemed to me that the ''Hygrophoropsis aurantiaca'' and ''Telopea truncata'' articles were already so well written that I only made a few minor edits (and even one or two of those were changed). It almost seems as if I'm not needed. Will there be articles that need more copy-editing than those? Or are those minor edits precisely what is needed? I think articles on animals (and birds, and insects) are much more interesting than articles on plants and fungi, but I'll do those, too. I also really like articles on geology, mining, and environmental topics. [[User:Corinne|Corinne]] ([[User talk:Corinne#top|talk]]) 02:49, 17 December 2015 (UTC) |
||
:::I'm sorry, I forgot to look in the histories, I was doing a search at [[WP:FAC]] on your username. With the disclaimer that I'm looking at just your edits, I really like your work on [[Telopea truncata]] and [[Hygrophoropsis aurantiaca]]. The FAC coords typically need at least three supports that they have confidence in before they'll promote an article. Not many reviewers "support on prose", and coords aren't always willing to count these supports as full supports, but I think they're likely to treat your prose supports on that level. When it works, the service of frequent prose-supports for a wikiproject can make a big difference in that wikiproject's success rate at FAC. (This is just my experience, stop me if I'm [[mansplaining]]). 1. Writers gain confidence in taking articles to FAC because it's less likely that prose will be a stopper. 2. If you choose to copyedit and support on prose before other supports, the article is less likely to be archived quickly for lack of support. 3. Nominators will only need two "full" supports, which makes a big difference, on average. |
:::I'm sorry, I forgot to look in the histories, I was doing a search at [[WP:FAC]] on your username. With the disclaimer that I'm looking at just your edits, I really like your work on [[Telopea truncata]] and [[Hygrophoropsis aurantiaca]]. The FAC coords typically need at least three supports that they have confidence in before they'll promote an article. Not many reviewers "support on prose", and coords aren't always willing to count these supports as full supports, but I think they're likely to treat your prose supports on that level. When it works, the service of frequent prose-supports for a wikiproject can make a big difference in that wikiproject's success rate at FAC. (This is just my experience, stop me if I'm [[mansplaining]]). 1. Writers gain confidence in taking articles to FAC because it's less likely that prose will be a stopper. 2. If you choose to copyedit and support on prose before other supports, the article is less likely to be archived quickly for lack of support. 3. Nominators will only need two "full" supports, which makes a big difference, on average. |
||
:::So, to recap, the purpose of offering people the chance to do TFAs is that I'm trying to find people willing to do prose supports at FAC for whatever wikiprojects they want to support in this way. Now that you've |
:::So, to recap, the purpose of offering people the chance to do TFAs is that I'm trying to find people willing to do prose supports at FAC for whatever wikiprojects they want to support in this way. Now that you've copyedited those two articles, do you think they're in good enough shape to offer a support on prose for either or both? - Dank ([[User talk:Dank|push to talk]]) 03:48, 17 December 2015 (UTC) |
||
:::You're welcome to add [[WP:BIRDS]] and [[WP:INSECTS]] to the list of |
:::You're welcome to add [[WP:BIRDS]] and [[WP:INSECTS]] to the list of TFAs and FACs you can jump on, if you like. We don't get a lot of geology, mining, and environmental topics at TFA, but I'll keep an eye out for those as well. - Dank ([[User talk:Dank|push to talk]]) 03:51, 17 December 2015 (UTC) |
||
== [[Talk:Henry Hoʻolulu Pitman]] == |
== [[Talk:Henry Hoʻolulu Pitman]] == |
||