User talk:Ryderofpelham123

Read first! Welcome to my talk page! Questions, information, warnings? Say it here! Please post new topic at the bottom of this page, please sign your topic with ~~~~. And remember, Assume good faith! Click here to start a new topic.

Welcome!

Hi Ryderofpelham123! I noticed your contributions and wanted to welcome you to the Wikipedia community. I hope you like it here and decide to stay.

As you get started, you may find this short tutorial helpful:

Learn more about editing

Alternatively, the contributing to Wikipedia page covers the same topics.

If you have any questions, we have a friendly space where experienced editors can help you here:

Get help at the Teahouse

If you are not sure where to help out, you can find a task here:

Volunteer at the Task Center

Happy editing! SilkTork *^YES! 11:06, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Diego's Hair Salon/GA1

Hi Ryderofpelham123, welcome to Wikipedia, and thanks for your willingness to get involved in Good Article reviews. I agree with your general view that Diego's Hair Salon is a rather small article on a rather small topic - however it's not part of the GA criteria to assess notability, so we don't fail articles on that basis. We have criteria which we apply - Wikipedia:Good article criteria - and it's useful to contributors to articles nominated for GA to go through the criteria on the review page, indicating where the article meets the criteria, and where it doesn't so the contributors know what work is needed. It is also usual for reviewers to then put the review on hold to allow contributors to do the work needed to meet the criteria. Would you like me to assist you with going through the criteria on that article? SilkTork *^YES! 11:06, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the warm welcome and advice. I appreciate you asking me about my decision before attempting to make a change. I didn't realize that you could not fail an article based on notability. In any event, I revisited the article and have come to the conclusion that it is still too short and there is not enough detail to warrant a good article approval. Also, it is rated start - class (not even B). In my experience (which is very little), I have only put a nomination on hold if the article seems easily fixable. At best, this article needs a major expansion. Let me know if you feel differently.

Ryderofpelham123 (talk) 23:41, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's worth going through the GA criteria together on that article. That will give you a feel for the process, and provide valuable feedback for the contributors. I'll put up a checklist on the review page. I'll give my comments, and put up a second checklist for you to put up your comments.

If anyone feels an article is not notable they can put it up for discussion at WP:AfD, or suggest WP:Merging it into a parent article - which in this case would be Dupont Circle, Washington, D.C.. Having looked at the parent article I note that the Hair Salon is not mentioned. My personal feeling is that Diego's Hair Salon would be more appropriate as a section in Dupont Circle, Washington, D.C. than as a standalone article. It is appropriate to make additional comments and suggestions during a GA review, and I would make that comment. It is possible that an article could be a Good Article and still be put up for deletion or merger at AfD as the GA process doesn't measure notability. The GA process measures if the article is verifiable and is well written and complies with certain basic style and policy issues. Notability is a separate assessment. SilkTork *^YES! 08:55, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Let me know if you wish to continue with this review. If not, then I will suggest to the nominator that they renominate the article, and will conduct the review myself. If I have not had a response from you in seven days I will proceed with the renominating route. Regards SilkTork *^YES! 10:45, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It is not September 27th yet :( and I did make some changes. Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 00:26, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Future GA Reviews

Let me know if you wish to do any more GA reviews, and I'll be happy to go through them with you. We need more people willing to do GA reviews, so your assistance is most welcome. New (and some not so new) reviewers sometimes don't follow the GA criteria closely enough, and use their personal views and opinions too much, so there are guidelines to help reviewers focus on the criteria - see Wikipedia:What the Good article criteria are not. The length of articles nominated for GA has been a question sometimes asked - see Wikipedia_talk:Good_article_nominations/Archive_12#How_short_may_a_GA_be.3F. The nature of GA is such that nothing is fixed in stone, and articles can be renominated or reassessed quite easily, so don't worry too much about making mistakes - it is better that you jump in and learn, than not get involved. However, it can be helpful to reflect on what one is doing, and to get feedback now and again. SilkTork *^YES! 01:37, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Thanks for the advice and offer. I think I am starting to get comfortable, but will need help. By the way, are you an admin or officer of some sort? Ryderofpelham123 (talk) 03:04, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm an admin. I also have some experience of writing and reviewing Good Articles. And I know that working in a new area of Wikipedia is easier when someone is prepared to help rather than criticise. Like many users I've now and again encountered some sharp remarks when not doing things in the normal manner in some aspect of Wikipedia, and I didn't find that at all helpful! New users get snapped at quite a lot, yet we were all new users at some point. Pick an article from WP:GAN, and we can go through it together, and discuss any points where we disagree. SilkTork *^YES! 08:57, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]