User talk:Seabuckthorn/Archives/2014/03

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

User:Seabuckthorn/Archive Header

Too many reviews[edit]

You are currently number 29 on the all-time list of most reviewed articles and rising. You reviewed 48 GAs in just the last 6 days. Something is very suspicious about this. You seem to just want easy passes to boost your numbers, without taking the time to really review them well. Why? Is this some kind of race? BollyJeff | talk 00:30, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

Yeah it does seem odd that you bailed out of his review. You have passed 48 articles in the last six days with little or no criticism, that does look questionable I have to say. Even reviewing 10 GAs a week is big. Is this for the wikicup or something? Why the rush? I don't mind fairly easy reviews but if you could provide some points for improvement, even just a couple, I think the editors would be very grateful.♦ Dr. Blofeld 10:53, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

One thing I personally noticed is that your GA reviews concentrated primarily on prose. Now, it's possible that's the only thing wrong with any of the articles I've worked on, but I would be very surprised if every single reference, image caption and choice of material wasn't at least worth a few questions to check I had looked over them myself before nominating it for GA. To give you an idea of what I get up to, Talk:Canadian drug charges and trial of Jimi Hendrix/GA1 is about the fastest GA review I've done recently, from a topic that had high publicity on WP and was edited by several long standing editors with a thorough understanding of the topic. Yet, I still managed to find numerous questions and issues that were worth raising. By contrast, have a look at Talk:Sega Genesis/GA2, which took the best part of a week and had six editors working on it. It did mean that it got an easier ride at FAC than it might have done otherwise, so it's worth doing the job well. I would say on average, GA reviews take a couple of days of 1-2 hours work each, more if there are complex issues such as being a BLP or having a history of edit warring, and that's probably the timeframe you should aim towards. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 15:36, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

My mission statement: To give the due respect to the diligent authors and their articles waiting in the GAC queue by ensuring a fair, thorough and quick review and also in the process learn from them as much as possible. ProofofmyMissionStatement (GAN training-Look at the end in the preview of My fourth GAN review: "Could you please provide me a list of careful authors like TonyTheTiger and SabreBD for my future reference? Their articles provide a very fresh perspective and are a privilege to read and review. I believe such authors and their articles should not wait in queue. Is it okay if I concentrate on these users only during the initial stages? I mean no one is forcing me to do that, it's my choice so I hope being bias may not be a question here. After all WP is my hobby". --Seabuckthorn ♥ 12:23, 1 January 2014 (UTC))
I hate to see such great authors waiting in the queue with their articles. Swiftly releasing the time, attention and focus of these authors from the GAC would, I believe, do a lot of good to WP. I'm unable to contribute on WP as an author due to technical difficulties and, of course, incompetence but I want to atleast help other great WPians do that.
The internet connection in my part of the world peaks mostly in the wee hours with a few unreliable occassional bursts during the daytime. I only get a few uncertain hours for WP mostly around 4 am to post all the work I did during the day. I complete most of the work offline mainly while travelling. I'd be glad to attach my notes on a mail as a proof for every article I reviewed. My mission statement has been the driving force. WP is my hobby so no question of any cup or saucer etc. Anyways since the GAN backlog drive has started, I may disappear from the GAC for the entire March. I don't start reviewing an article with any preconceived notion. I religiously apply the GA criteria and if no issues come out in the end, I post my review and pass the article. But I completely agree that I need to hone my assessment skills which are far from good at the moment. That's why I always undertake a thorough background check on the nominators before clicking on the "start review". I choose articles that are already a GA as per my rough assessment before starting the review. As far as the rush is concerned, reading is my hobby and whenever I come across a good article at GAC, it's a sort of an irresistible impulse. But I think it's a good idea to take one article per week only for reviewing. That way I'd be able to save my personal time also. Anyways, I hate to get up early in the morning everyday just to paste all the work I did during the daytime. But as per your assessment, I agree my approach appears to be wrong. I will incorporate your suggestions in my future reviews. It's a learning curve for me and I will commit mistakes; my goal is to learn from them.
I chose not to review this article because as per my analysis this article is very far from a GA and I don't want to fail it. As part of my work, I visited the local office of the largest Hindi daily in India Dainik Jagran. I asked my journalist friends about the material related to Hum Aapke Hain Koun..!. It's a common opinion among the experts here that there was a significant amount of information covered in the Hindi newspapers, including the criticism and the other aspects, at the time of its release in the 1990s, which is not covered in the article. The problem is that the Hindi newspapers did not go online at that time. So the majority of it is in the "hardcopy" format. I don't have the time to manually search the local archives. This is not a justification of my mistakes but an explanation of my thought process at that time.
Thanks, Ritchie333 and Dr. Blofeld, very much for your suggestions. I prepared this message during the daytime and have proofread it a lot of times to ensure there are no inadvertent mistakes from my side and to try my best to let you all know that I really really appreciate your suggestions here; it’s the first time I’m truly feeling a part of the community. But due to bad connection and travelling I could not post it. I apologise for the delay. Very sorry.svg--Seabuckthorn  21:16, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments. Hehe Tony is a bit more than careful though LOL. I agree that the excessively picky and prolonged reviews (like Annie Hall) put editors off wanting to contribute to GA. Obviously I prefer fairly light, efficient reviews than something like Tony would do, but I think some criticism can help improve the article. It's finding a balance. A couple of pointers for each one I really think help unless it's the sort of short road articles or something in which there's little there to moan about. The important thing I think is to indicate that the article has been thoroughly read, and I think it feels more rewarding for the article writer to see some constructive feedback and the article improved during the process. Your call though of course, but my advice would be to reduce the number you review a week and at least try to provide a couple of pointers. Talk:Kalidas (film)/GA1 was a reasonable level of criticism I thought for a relatively short article but it needed it. Obviously some articles need more criticism than others but in some cases you might be quite right to pass it without comment, but I doubt there are really that many which are "perfect" if you know what I mean! Thankyou anyway for your efforts and I hope you continue to see it as a learning curve. Above all I don't want to see articles being taken to GAR and people causing a fuss over multiple reviews that you've done!♦ Dr. Blofeld 08:25, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks very much[edit]

Thank you for reviewing another of my quality improvement projects on subjects related to freedom of speech and censorship, for the article Free Expression Policy Project.

Much appreciated,

Cirt (talk) 01:56, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Thank you very much for your diligence in writing such great articles. I need your help in honing my assessment skills. So if you don't mind, I'd like to request you to leave your candid feedback about this review which would help me improve as a reviewer. Thank you for your time!SFriendly.svg --Seabuckthorn  22:52, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Yet another Angelou review[edit]

Sea, I've addressed your comments here: Talk:Mom & Me & Mom/GA1. Thanks so much for the review! Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 18:46, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Thank you very much for your diligence in writing such great articles. I need your help in honing my assessment skills. So if you don't mind, I'd like to request you to leave your candid feedback about this review which would help me improve as a reviewer. Thank you for your time!SFriendly.svg --Seabuckthorn  22:52, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

(test) The Signpost: 05 March 2014[edit]

Research to understand article reviews[edit]


We’re a team of researchers at Stanford University, and we’re interested in how editors review nominated articles for GA status. Rather than just looking to the assessment guidelines, we’re also interested in how individual editors then use these guidelines to evaluate articles.

We were hoping if you’d be able to spend some time with us, and help us understand how you would differentiate, say, a C-class article from a Good Article.

Looking forward to hearing back! Our email address is jc14253 AT cs DOT stanford DOT edu

Justin Cheng and Michael Bernstein Stanford University

Jcccf (talk) 00:59, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

GAR nominations[edit]

Hey Seabuckthorn, I see you've signed up to review quite a number of my articles. Please let me know if you have an estimated timeline for reviewing them. If your reviews are going to be delayed, I'd like to have them reviewed by other editors. Thanks! -- Caponer (talk) 01:31, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Hi! No worries! All the best, SFriendly.svg --Seabuckthorn  21:48, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
Thank you for taking the time to review all these articles, Seabuckthorn! I've been able to address your concerns regarding Colross and Robert White (judge). I'll notify you once I've been able to finish addressing your concerns with the remainder of the reviewed articles. Thanks again! -- Caponer (talk) 04:34, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
I have also addressed all your concerns with Howard Hille Johnson. Thanks! -- Caponer (talk) 02:43, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
Wow! Thanks! I watch review pages only. So could you please summarise your comments on the respective talk pages? I hope you don't mind. Thanks again for your diligence! All the best, SFriendly.svg --Seabuckthorn  22:52, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
All my comments have been left on the respective talk pages for each of the three mentioned above: Talk:Robert White (judge)/GA1, Talk:Howard Hille Johnson/GA1, and Talk:Colross/GA1. I'm still working on the other five nominations that you have reviewed, and hope to have them completed soon. In the meantime, please take a look at my comments and edits and ensure that I've addressed all your concerns for the first three. Thanks again for all your hard work and patience! -- Caponer (talk) 00:51, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
I've also finished addressing your comments for John Collins Covell, and have left comments at Talk:John Collins Covell/GA1. Please let me know if you identify and outstanding issues with this article. -- Caponer (talk) 02:06, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
In addition, I've finished addressing your comments for Isaac Parsons (American military officer), and left my comments at Talk:Isaac Parsons (American military officer)/GA1. Now only three more to go! Thank you for your patience in the meantime! -- Caponer (talk) 21:08, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
I've also finished addressing your comments for Gabriel Jones (Virginia), and left my comments at Talk:Gabriel Jones (Virginia)/GA1. Now only two more to go! -- Caponer (talk) 21:36, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
Alright, I've finished addressing your comments for Andrew Wodrow, and left my comments at Talk:Andrew Wodrow/GA1. Now only ONE more to go! The last article will take a little bit to revise, so please allow me a few more days to complete that one. In the meantime, you now have seven articles to re-review and ensure that I have sufficiently met all your criteria for GA status. Please feel free to keep me posted should you have any outstanding questions or concerns regarding the seven articles I have responded to and edited with your guidance. Thank you again for your diligence and thoughtfulness as you assist in getting these articles passed for GA status! -- Caponer (talk) 01:46, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
Last message, I swear! I have completed my responses to all eight of my GARs; the final one being Isaac Parsons (Virginia politician). Please re-review and let me know if any of the above articles need any final edits or fixes. Thanks again! -- Caponer (talk) 02:42, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 12 March 2014[edit]

One Good Article barnstar for Seabuckthorn![edit]

GA barnstar.png The Good Article Barnstar
Great work on reviewing Good Article nominations :D I see you reviewing GAR's all the time and I love your signature. Keep up the great work Sea :D Newyorkadam (talk) 06:20, 16 March 2014 (UTC)Newyorkadam

Girl with a Pearl Earring GA review[edit]

Are u still reviewing Girl with a Pearl Earring (film), which is a GA nominee? Kailash29792 (talk) 10:57, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

FAC request[edit]

Hi Sea, I know that you usually do GA reviews, but would you mind branching out to do a FA review? My most recent FAC [1], another Angelou article, has been languishing for a while, and I'm afraid that it will fail due to lack of support. Would you mind going over and taking a look? Thanks, I appreciate it. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 17:25, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

Selle Francais GAN[edit]

Hi Seabuckthorn! I see that you have begun a review of Selle Francais, but have not done more than leave an initial comment. I am just stopping by with a quick ping, to see if you had forgotten the review? It's actually been nice that the review has been delayed, as I have been offline quite a bit, but I'm able to be on a bit more regularly now, and it would be great to see the review progress. Thanks in advance, Dana boomer (talk) 14:46, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 19 March 2014[edit]

Caponer GARs[edit]

Hey Seabuckthorn, I wanted to take this opportunity to check in and see if you've been able to review the corrections I made to the eight articles you so kindly and thoroughly reviewed. Please let me know if these require any further modifications! -- Caponer (talk) 16:56, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

  1. Talk:Colross/GA2
  2. Talk:John Collins Covell/GA1
  3. Talk:Howard Hille Johnson/GA1
  4. Talk:Gabriel Jones (Virginia)/GA1
  5. Talk:Isaac Parsons (American military officer)/GA1
  6. Talk:Isaac Parsons (Virginia politician)/GA1
  7. Talk:Robert White (judge)/GA1
  8. Talk:Andrew Wodrow/GA1

Girl With a Pearl Earring GA review[edit]

Hi Seabuckthorn, I'm not sure if you're aware of the discussion happening over on the GA nomination talkpage re: your outstanding reviews. Given that you haven't been online since the beginning of this month, the GA reviews that you haven't completed have been deleted and the articles in question re-listed in the queue.

I've taken over one of these outstanding reviews, for Girl With a Pearl Earring, without realising that it was originally yours. It was only in the course of researching the nom that I saw your userpage note indicating that you might still be working on these reviews offline. Given which, I just wanted to give you a heads-up to ensure I'm not stepping on any toes. Since the nominator has already waited some while for this review to happen I feel it's important that I start it right away. However, if it does turn out you've put serious work into your review already, I'd be more than happy to ensure your concerns are addressed as well. (I can't imagine you'd have many, even on first read-through I can tell this isn't a particularly problematic nom.) Please let me know how you'd like to proceed. Shoebox2 talk 22:22, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 26 March 2014[edit]