User:EyeSerene/Sandbox

Useful text

Welcome message

{{subst:w-graphical|Any questions, leave me a note on my [[User talk:EyeSerene|talk]] page and I'll
try to help out ;)}}

GA review text

GA sweep hold message for article contributor

I have reassessed this article as part of [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Good articles/Project quality task
force]]. We are currently revisiting all listed Good articles in an effort to ensure that they
continue to meet the [[WP:WIAGA|Good article criteria]].

In reviewing the article, I came across some minor issues that may need to be addressed; I have left
a detailed summary on the article's talk page. As a result I have put [[ARTICLE]]'s GA status
'''on hold'''. This will remain in place for a week or so before a final decision is taken as to the
article's status.

I've left this notice here because, from the article history, you have been a significant
contributor. If you no longer edit this article, please accept my apologies and feel free to
disregard this message ;)

Regards, ~~~~

Taken on

I have taken on [[<ARTICLENAME>]] for review under the [[WP:WIAGA|Good Article criteria]], as
nominated on the [[WP:GAC|Good article candidates]] page by [[User:<NAME>]]. You'll be pleased to
hear that the article meets none of the [[WP:QFC|quick-fail criteria]], so I will shortly be
conducting an in-depth review and will post the results below.

Where an article is not an outright pass, but requires relatively minor additional work to be brought
up to GA standard, I will normally place it on hold - meaning that editors have around a week to
address any issues raised. As a precaution to prevent failure by default should this occur, if
editors are likely to be unavailable over the next ten days or so, feel free to leave a message on my
[[User talk:EyeSerene|talk]] page so we can arrange a more convenient time for review. Regards, ~~~~

Quick fail

I am sorry to inform you that I have quick-failed [[<ARTICLENAME>]] as a candidate for
Good article promotion. Under the [[WP:QFC|quick-fail criteria]], a quick-fail 
applies where an article <REASONS>.

If you believe that I have applied the criteria inappropriately, or have any other 
concerns about the conduct of this review, you can list the article on the [[WP:GAR|Good 
article reassessment]] page for discussion by other GA reviewers. Alternatively you may wish to address 
the issues raised above and then renominate the article on the [[WP:GAN|Good article nominations]] 
page. Please also feel free to [[User talk:EyeSerene|contact me]] if you have any questions. 
Regards, ~~~~

Quick pass

I am pleased to tell you that [[<ARTICLENAME>]] can be passed in its current form as a 
'''good article''' under the [[WP:WIAGA|Good article criteria]]. I have listed it on the 
[[WP:GA|Good Articles]] page under <HEADINGS> and updated any templates on this talk page. For 
the record, the following editors have been identified from the article history as contributing 
significantly (with five or more major edits in the last 50) to this version of the article: 
<small>[[User:<NAME>]]</small>. For further improvement in the future, <SUGGESTIONS>.

Congratulations, and well done! ~~~~

Review

Thank you for nominating this article for [[WP:GA|good article]] review. I have assessed it against the
[[WP:WIAGA|six good article criteria]], and commented in detail below:

1. '''Writing''':
:(a) Prose
::*
:(b) Manual of style
::*

2. '''Sourcing''':
:(a) References
::*
:(b) In-line citations
::*
:(c) Original research
::*

3. '''Broadness''':
:(a) Topic coverage
::*
:(b) Focus
::*

4. '''Neutrality''':
::*

5. '''Stablility''':
::*

6. '''Images''':
:(a) Copyright status
::*
:(b) Relevance and captioning
::*

As a result of the above review, I have placed the article '''on hold'''. This gives editors up to a week to
address the issues raised (although if constructive work is underway, the hold period will be extended). I will
regularly check back here to mark off those issues that have been satisfactorily resolved and to address any 
questions and comments you may have.

Feel free to [[User talk:EyeSerene|contact me]] if you have any questions or believe the article is ready for a
re-review. All the best, ~~~~

GA pass after hold

Congratulations on an excellent copyedit on the suggestions provided. I have now passed 
[[<ARTICLE>]] as a Good Article, and listed it as such on the [[WP:GA|Good Articles]] page under 
''<HEADINGS>''. For the record, <USER(S)> contributed significantly to this GA pass (with five 
or more major edits in the last 50).

For futher improvement in the future, <SUGGESTIONS>.

GA fail after hold

The '''hold''' period has now expired, and I have reluctantly failed this article because the 
points raised above have not been fully addressed. If you believe that I have applied the fail 
criteria inappropriately, or have any other concerns about the conduct of this review, you can 
list [[<ARTICLENAME>]] on the [[WP:GA/R|Good article review]] page for discussion by other GA 
reviewers. Alternatively you may wish to address the issues raised above and then renominate the 
article on the [[WP:GAC|Good article candidates]] page. Please also feel free to [[User 
talk:EyeSerene|contact me]] if you have any questions. Regards, ~~~~

GA pass user talk page message

Thank you for your hard work on [[ARTICLE]]. Following an excellent copyedit on the suggestions
provided, I have now passed this article as a [[WP:GA|Good article]], and updated the various talk
page templates to reflect this.

That also means you get one of these:

{{User Good Article|ARTICLE}}

{{clear}}which you may like to place on your user page (or somewhere suitable) by copy/pasting
'''<nowiki>{{User Good Article|ARTICLE}}</nowiki>''' into the page code.

Great job - well done! ~~~~

Drafts

Prose etc: there are various long compound sentences that could be split and instances of jargon. In keeping with writing for our target audience, the Manual of Style states "Writing should be clear and concise. Articles are supposed to introduce readers to topics, or remind them of what they had half-forgotten: it is not their purpose to dazzle readers with editors' learning or vocabulary. Plain English works best: avoid jargon, vague phrases, and unnecessary complexity." One school of thought is that we should where possible write as though for an intelligent 12-year old.
- Example of a sentence that could be split: "This work was overall well-received and much attention has been paid to Carpentier's inclusion of magical realism in the novel, however some aspects of his style have been ignored by the academic community." ('however' is also the most overused word on Wikipedia!)
- Example of over-complex writing: "In this spectacle situation, Carpentier is able to juxtapose the Europeans' experience of Mackandal's body falling into the flames with the autocthonous (Afro-Haitian) experience of Mackandal's body flying off the stake." Without additional explanation we can't really tell what the significance of this event is, and 'spectacle situation' and 'autocthonous' could be expanded upon.
Wikilinking: internally linking words is only necessary on their first occurrence, and then only when they add value to the article. Examples: Haitian Revolution is linked multiple times whereas terms like "hybridization", "voodoo" etc that a reader may wish to look up in more detail aren't.
marvellous: this recurrent theme is mentioned many times but not explored until near the end of the article. I wonder if there's a way to either give a brief explanation earlier in the article and/or to indicate that the word is being used in a particular sense (note that I placed it in quote marks in the section heading, but italicising it might be better)
Referencing: the GA criteria call for "in-line citations from reliable sources for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged". There are a number of assertions in the article that could do with explicit citations and perhaps even attribution; it can be helpful to our readers to indicate whose opinion we are reproducing.
- Example: "This adds to the key blend of marvellous fantasy and historical accuracy." needs a cite, and might benefit from being written something like "According to X, this adds to the key blend of marvellous fantasy and historical accuracy."
Plagiarism/copyright violations: I sincerely hope this comment doesn't offend anyone - that's not my intention at all - but the article needs to be thoroughly checked that it doesn't either directly reproduce another writer's words or paraphrase them too closely. I'm not implying this has happened, but because it's so easily done even with the best intentions I hope you understand it's something we have to mention.
Images: these are appropriately licensed and captioned, though for images that are non-free (eg File:Henri Christophe.jpg) there are restrictions on where and when they can be used. It's not worth going into that in detail now - personally I'd probably just wait and see what the GA reviewer thinks.

Test

Signatures

EyeSerene^TALK

EyeSerene^talk

Custom awards

		Balls in the Air Award
		Gratefully presented to jbmurray for maintaining one of the most dextrous acts of juggling multiple articles I've yet seen... and still finding the time to review Good Article nominations and contribute elsewhere. Truly impressive, and much appreciated! EyeSerene^talk 22:51, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Thank you...

...for your participation in my RFA, which closed with 85 supports, 2 neutrals and 1 oppose. I'm extremely grateful for all the the kind comments from so many brilliant Wikipedians I've come to respect and admire, as well as many others I've not yet had the pleasure of working with, and I'll do my best to put my shiny new mop and bucket to good use! Once again, thank you ;)
[SIG]

		Thank you
		Please accept this Blue Moon Rose as a token of my gratitude for your unstinting and selfless willingness to assist a less accomplished Wikipedian with a knotty copyright problem at very short (ie no) notice. Thank you very much. EyeSerene^talk 20:28, 10 June 2009 (UTC)