Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Featured articles/FA-Team/Mission 6

Mission proposal: Wikipedia:WikiProject North of the Rio Grande

• Here they come again ... or did y'all already spot this? Mike Christie (talk) 00:20, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
• With another bunch of new editors to enthuse about Wikipedia, how can we turn this one down? Plus, it will surely be a lot of fun. The only difficult thing will be resisting the temptation to start too soon: we shouldn't launch a mission, in my view, until the students have already begun making significant content additions. Geometry guy 11:12, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
• I will, of course, help out, but I agree with GG. Awadewit (talk) 14:44, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
• Yup, looking forward to it. EyeSerene^talk 11:08, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
• Per Awadewit. –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 17:35, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
• Thanks, guys! I've been a little shy about asking for FA-Team help, but of course would very much appreciate any contributions. I'm hoping to ensure that the students get into gear a little earlier this semester. We'll see... --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 20:41, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
• Support — I actually want to help this time. —Sunday ^Scribe 21:37, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose Super Fanatically Oppose Now I understand your challenge Professor jbmurray.... on the discussion page for Wikipedia:WikiProject North of the Rio Grande. So you are bringing in the big guns are you! Dang it ... all my connections are either blocked or retired! This still should add an element of fun ... and hopefully spark some motivation! Best of luck to you and your team.--JimmyButler (talk) 03:41, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Huh? Anyway, you're not a member of this project. SPA? :) —§unday His Grandiloquence 18:28, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Heh. Nah, this is our competition.  ;) And they surely would appreciate some FA-Team help, also. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 18:56, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

• Let's do both! The FA team should not take sides, especially when the stakes are high — although individual FA-Team members might want to take sides :-) Anyway, I have a couple of pages from each project on my watchlist, and I'm waiting for them to start burning holes in my LCD as the competition heats up. Meanwhile, can anyone think of a snappy title for a mission on both Chicano/Latino literature and high school biology?! Geometry guy 19:55, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
• My posting on the page was a tongue-and-cheek commentary; merely a response to an informal and friendly challenge agreed upon with jbmurray regarding our current efforts at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject AP Biology 2008. I assume we are both interested in adding an element of excitement to our class projects. Frankly, I'm simply honored that he chose to recognize our efforts at all considering his enormous success in the past. In our case, without prior experience nor any certainty as to the abilities or commitment level of my students to the project --- I'm reluctant to elevate this to anything more formal. We may in fact go down in flames (not just in the competition) - much remains to be seen. So I will keep my "Not Ready for Prime Time Players" off the world stage for now and merely extend my appreciation to any and all editors who may choose to help along the way. Again, I am most honored that Geometry guy and this esteemed group of editors would consider our efforts worthy, however, for our first attempt we will stay below the radar and not intrude nor siphon away any assistance to jbmurray highly respected project - Wikipedia:WikiProject North of the Rio Grande. That's not saying we are backing down from the challenge --- I've heard Labatt is an excellent Canadian beer --- Prof. Murray, can you afford the shipping cost?! --JimmyButler (talk) 02:07, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

  The FA-Team are just a bunch of editors (no offense to fellow team members intended!). There's nothing prime-time about us, and we have out failures as well as our successes. We just like to help new folk learn how to write great Wikipedia articles. Like any other editors, we get involved when a project interests us. That often happens when the project lights up our watchlists. As Jbm has noted, action generates more action here on Wikipedia. Your team are already making appearances on my watchlist, while Jbm's team haven't done so yet. Much as I revere Jbm as you do, I would like to point out that he is, like Zaphod Beeblebrox, "just this guy, you know?" :-) Geometry guy 22:03, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

  I agree with Gguy (as usual). I can understand you being wary of raising expectations at this point, and obviously your first priority must be whatever you think best for your students, but we're here, available, and enjoy what we do. I'd hate anyone to think that there's some sort of exclusivity about enlisting our efforts ;) EyeSerene^talk 10:58, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

• Hello esteemed editors and brilliant 'wikipedia-ists'! Our group has just started our page for Woman Hollering Creek and Other Stories (fantastic book, by the way, you should read it!) But we do feel a little out of our league and overwhelmed by all this new wiki-terminology and criteria. If you wouldn't mind having a look at our page and pointing out any errors in the structure (especially references) or general writing of the article, it would be much appreciated. Thank-you!! --Katie322 (talk) 02:09, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

  Heh. Looks like we're on the move now! Perhaps time to set this up as an official FA-Team mission? --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 05:04, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

  It may be more inhibiting than helpful to be worrying about fine detail like citation templates (cite book etc.) just now. The class has to move fast on content for DYK. I'm watchlisting five of the articles right now and will help out where I can.

  A mission will surely start soon. Any volunteers for coordinator? I also think we can include JimmyButler's project, unless we hear more strenuous objections from him :-) Okay, Jimmy? Geometry guy 08:36, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

• My watchlist is now beginning to become slightly warmer than it was before. :-) Geometry guy 23:05, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

  Yup, we're on the move! They're a good group, too, I should say. You'll enjoy helping them out. The pair who are working on Carmen Rodriguez have already fixed up an interview with the author herself. Which means, inter alia, that we need to figure out how much if any of that interview counts as a reliable source. Hmmm. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 23:13, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

• I'm still having trouble with the mission title. Perhaps there isn't one. Perhaps there isn't really a mission. Or even a team. Or, in a more Mexican spirit, "No hey banda"? Geometry guy 12:38, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
• Support. This is now lively enough to start a mission in my view. I'm willing to coordinate if no one else is, but maybe we need "vice coordinators" (sounds like a fun job) for the biology and literature parts. Geometry guy 21:03, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

  Would this be including both projects? Personally I'd feel happier if we had positive confirmation from JimmyButler that we're not imposing, before we turn up on his group's articles like the horsemen of the apocalypse... many of his groups are already being mentored. Otherwise, I've no objections to getting things underway. EyeSerene^talk 21:42, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

  I've left a message for JimmyButler. Many of the mentors are FA team members anyway. Geometry guy 21:58, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

  Yup, I think formalising it is more of a psychological step than anything at the moment. From the project page, the students are already in very good hands ;) EyeSerene^talk 22:35, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Woman Hollering Creek and Other Stories

Guys... I'll try and provide a more general update shortly, but in the meantime Team Woman Hollering Creek and Other Stories has been doing a fantastic job, and their article is surely soon ready for WP:GAN. I wonder if a couple of FA-Teamers would be able to do an informal peer review and/or copy-edit, and note on the article's talk page what they think is still needed for GA? Many thanks. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 20:22, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Meanwhile, here's the latest overall update. Unfortunately, some articles aren't moving, or are hardly moving. To be fair, it's been midterm week. But we need to ramp up the activity very soon. The two that are close to "good article" status, in my view, are Carmen Rodriguez and (as above) Woman Hollering Creek and Other Stories. Others that could benefit from advice and input might include Sandra Cisneros and Who Would Have Thought It?. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 01:46, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Hello wonderful editors! The lead to our article Woman Hollering Creek and Other Stories has just been expanded and I was wondering if you could take a quick look and offer any suggestions. Any tips for the rest of the article would also be greatly appreciated. Thanks for your time!! --Katie322 (talk) 02:19, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Clarification

I should have said this explicitly in my messages: please watchlist this page! Also I'd really like each article to be watchlisted by at least two team members: it is much more fun that way! Geometry guy 21:14, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

update

Esteemed FA-Team... Here's a latest update. The edits are really ramping up now, and some of these articles are coming on by leaps and bounds. I know FA-Teamers have already got involved in a couple of articles, which is really great. It won't be long before a couple of other articles could do with some advice.

Inter alia, team Woman Hollering Creek and Other Stories has had some very thorough comments from Gguy and Awadewit. Carmen Rodriguez has likewise benefited from Mike Christie's thoughtful gaze.

So the two I'd point to now that could shortly use some advice are probably Julia Alvarez (and I've specifically suggested that User:EyeSerene take a look in that direction) and How the García Girls Lost Their Accents which, after a long time in the doldrums, is now really taking off. --08:24, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

• I've offered some general comments on these articles. Awadewit (talk) 16:51, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks so much especially to Awadewit, EyeSerene, Gguy, Taxman, and Mike Christie, who have been extraordinarily generous and helpful.

I'll be posting some further updates in the next day or so. Today is in fact their due date for GA nomination. Two articles have already been nominated. One is on the precipitate side. But good work is going on all around. Here are some preliminary notes:

• Woman Hollering Creek and Other Stories was the first article to be nominated at GA. This has had repeated feedback, particularly from Awadewit. It's still a little rough at the edges, especially towards the end. As Gguy has noted, this semester the students are particularly keen on direct quotation. I'm not sure if that's my fault, on insisting on sources, sources, sources... But anyhow, this is not far from GA standard, and stands a decent chance (I think) with a little further revision.

• Who Would Have Thought It? has been nominated at GA. Gguy has been working with the student editors here. There are some glaring issues still remaining. I've summarized my sense of them here. I hope the studes will be able to get to these things before a reviewer gets to the article. If, however, it's quick-failed, then so be it. I think Gguy and I are on the case pretty much.

• Carmen Rodriguez has been nominated at GA. Mike Christie has been helping out, but another pair of eyes would probably be welcome. This article's pretty good, and the editors have done a lot of research. The subject of the article herself has recently commented on it (via email), which may or may not be good news... But in general, this is not far from GA.

• José Martí has been nominated at GA. This article still has lots of issues, some of which I've detailed on its talk page. There are problems still with some of the sources used, and with coverage, though there has been much progress, especially recently. Help and encouragement would be welcome here, though perhaps after a couple of more likely candidates have already passed through GA.

• Julia Alvarez has been nominated at GA, and has probably undergone more change than any other article over the last week or so. There are still some issues (and some clean-up tags), but EyeSerene and Taxman are on the case here.

More to come... --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 00:33, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Up-date AP Biology

Unfortunately - my update is not nearly as up-beat. This was the first year in AP Biology that it was extended to the 10 grade level. A few or perhaps several have/will decided that they are not yet ready for the challenge and thus will be leaving. As part of the "deal" for their exodus I agreed to drop the Wikipedia project from their list of commitments. The group still with us should be more stream-lined and efficient; actually making this considerably more rewarding for all involved. I will be deleting their names from the Project page and notifying the mentors. My only concern is their request for peer reviews (some submissions were in sad condition and hardly worth the review). I guess I need help on the best approach to canceling a peer review request of those entries so that no one waste time. I can also delete the students from this page if you wish.

In regards to the competition. As FoodPuma demonstrated in Osteochondritis dissecans; they are capable - so don't spend all your beer money just yet.--JimmyButler (talk) 17:59, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Two Three Four Five Six Seven that are currently dropped include: Chondromalacia patellae and Bone grafting and Black Mamba and Cooper's Hawk and Osteochondrosis and Keratosis pilaris and Lymphangioma. --JimmyButler (talk) 18:26, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Tell your grade-10's that they are not alone in their stress-levels with advanced courses. My first year of Full IB was somewhere between hell on earth and actual hell. In the meantime, even Bone grafting saw a significant increase in article size and content before the student dropped, and several other articles are quickly moving up the assessment ladder. All the best, Cam ^(Chat) 00:19, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

I've removed those three. I have the impression that the FA-Team has not been doing as much in support of these articles as in support of NRG. Of course we are all volunteers so this may be a matter of editor interest. I hope that reduction in the number of articles will encourage a concentration of efforts. Please feel free to post here, or on the mission page, announcements of peer reviews, GANs and FACs. Geometry guy 22:20, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Keep in mind also that we've got a whole year with the AP-Biology crew - whereas four months with the UBC crew. That, and the fact that a smaller class-size in AP and IB subjects tends to make the whole class work better - and thus better the quality of everything they do - articles included. Cam ^(Chat) 20:03, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Another Update

• North American River Otter is a Good-Article Nominee. Assistance is needed in particular on the formatting of the references to be more in line with standard FA-technical guidelines.
• Endomembrane System has passed GA, bringing the score to 4-2.

Given that our work with Murray's bunch is completed, I suggest that we focus our attention on moving the remainder of the articles in AP-Biology up the assessment ladder - there's a few that are nearing B-Class and are almost ready for GAN. Cam ^(Chat) 20:05, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

I've edited the project page to reflect the attrition of students as the second semester approaches. Normally, our AP classes are around 15 or less. Managing 24 different topics was not going too well at this end. The second semester should be significantly more productive. I do appreciate your interest and efforts; however, the challenge was only for one semester so I completely understand if your group desires to bring your connections to a closure. There have been some successes within Wikipedia with two GA from this bunch and a couple more with potential. The students that did edit are very excited about the collaborative aspect to the project. I can assure you that the impact on my class was profound. Just the aspect of "credible source" has an entire new meaning for my class. Research papers now seem mundane and obsolete when compared to the learning experience gained from our efforts. I have much to reflect on. I thank you. As to our good friends in the North; I'm currently looking for something that will honor your success. Something that connects with our more southern roots. Perhaps a can of Opossum stew and a bottle of Duplin County Wine. (A county better known for its hog farms). I'll get back with them at their web site Wikipedia:WikiProject North of the Rio Grande once things are finalized. Again thank you for allowing us to tag along with such a stellar group of editors. Cheers --JimmyButler (talk) 03:48, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Regarding the competition, I think WP:WAPB should be given the chance of a draw with WP:NRG. After all, there are currently two GA nominations! I think it would be unfair to let WP:WAPB win after the other team has retired though. Regarding FA-Team support, I'm happy to continue this mission as long as FA team members remain interested in helping out. I'm still interested in helping out. Geometry guy 22:04, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

As am I. Cam ^(Chat) 23:59, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

The second semester group will be 14 students. A reasonable number to manage I think. We also have 5 GA articles at the close of our class; hopefully, they will attempt the much more challenging task of a FA attempt. It has been intense; but the reward for meeting GA has been raised to the status of Nobel Prize in our world. So keep the suggestions for improvement coming!--JimmyButler (talk) 20:08, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Experts in need!

Thoughts on this review and suggestions. Talk:Osteitis fibrosa cystica/GA1. Really complicates things when you link these projects to a grade. --JimmyButler (talk) 11:30, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

It's sinking in:

The GA review was somewhat limited in supporting detail. This is disappointing in many ways to the student, in that they received a review that dampens the celebratory mood despite the pass. The agreement was - GA would be rewarded with extra points on their grade; this complicates things. I will give them the points - simply because they can and will address the concerns as they are raised. But they were still cheated out the sense of satisfactions that others felt when they made GA. It needs to be de-listed, edited and renominated. Is this an option?

This also opens up a whole new can of worms regarding the use of Wikipedia as a class assignment. Clearly it was a mistake to link student performance with GA or FA success. The element of excitement that went with overcoming the GA obstacle will be replaced with my personal definition of pass/fail. I see the potential for enough heat from disgruntled students and their parents looming in the horizon to pull the plug on this project. Old school trumps out again - break out the slate and chisels. --JimmyButler (talk) 15:35, 28 January 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by JimmyButler (talk • contribs)

Uff. Please accept my apologies on behalf of the GA WikiProject for that utterly inadequate review. It looks like it was done by a relatively new and inexperienced editor who seems to be dabbling in a number of areas with a view to RfA. I intend to delist the article (which is not GA-compliant yet) shortly; and would be very pleased to provide a full review if your students still wish to try for GA and haven't been too disheartened by this turn of events. They've probably been here long enough now to realise that "anyone can edit" means exactly that, and unfortunately the nature of GA reviewing throws up something like this every now and then :( Once more, apologies to you and your students, and let me know if they're up for another crack at the green dot. EyeSerene^talk 18:34, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

OK, I've delisted the article, left the reviewer a note, and reset the various templates to their status before the GA pass, but I'm not sure what you want to do next so I've gone no further. We could, if you like, take the article to Good article review, in which case I'll do the necessary template/page edits, or (what seems to me the simplest solution) we could just use the existing review page to conduct a full review. I haven't restored the nomination at WP:GAN; under the circumstances we can work around that if necessary.

I appreciate that your student may not wish to revisit the article having already been awarded their GA - however unsatisfactorily - so I'll be guided by you. From the Wikipedia perspective though, the article is not yet at GA standard and we obviously can't pretend that it is; I deeply regret any difficulties this causes your grading system. I'm sure it's no consolation, but you aren't the first to suffer from such misfortune (as User:Jbmurray would tell you). EyeSerene^talk 19:29, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

I suggest either restoring the GA nomination (as the review is not yet adequate), and continuing with the same GAN review, or recording the fail in article history and starting an individual or community GAR. It might be amusing for the WP Biology WikiProject to experience GAR as well as GAN. However, I think the former (GAN) approach is simpler and less bureaucratic. Geometry guy 21:34, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Indeed, my only concern with relisting at GAN now is that if JimmyButler's student doesn't want to return to the article, we might have a nom without an associated editor. EyeSerene^talk 21:59, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure about wiki-etiquette, so if it's taboo to weigh in on this as the active contributor to the article, I apologize in advance. However, I'm more than willing to take any direction advised to make Osteitis fibrosa cystica a true GA. That is, I plan on editing the article until we all give up or there's just nothing left to say. Strombollii (talk) 03:17, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Your opinion, as the GA nominator and primary contributor, is the most valuable one here, so thank you for responding. Given your commitment to getting over this bump in the road, I'll re-review - expect to see something posted on the article talk-page shortly ;) EyeSerene^talk 09:42, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Interestingly, the user User talk:Strombollii has faith in the system and its ability to police itself. I am prepared to give them the grade; however, they have opted to continue their efforts to ensure its legitimacy. Please note, any weakness in this project are exclusively of my own making. Failing to make contingencies for such an event was my fault. I'm not certain how JB Murray has adapted to relinquishing the power over grades to an outside authority. I need to research this. For example, what if a GAN had laid dormant (as this one did) with no attention and a grade deadline fast approaching? What if an evaluation is highly critical and at the last minute - what is the basis of equity for grading if all students were not given equal amounts of time to make corrections? Have there been situations where students/parents have celebrated success only to have the grade removed from the books because of a GA revert. Some of my students have had extensive support; some less. Evaluation of group performance is always problematic; but in this case, the teacher plays role in group assignment - its whoever may drop in on your talk page. The groups are so beyond equitable as to be indefensible. There seems like a lot of variables here that need a much clearer / crafted plan than what I walked in with. Perhaps the establishment of pre-selected teams of qualified editors to serve as mentors and evaluators as in the case of JBMurray's project might eliminate the inequities between groups. That way - the nominations are immediately evaluated by a group that you can defend as competent. Perhaps requiring students to submit their GAN's at least two months before the course closes to allow for adequate time for it to get a fair review. In this case - a grade revert is easy - since the student agreed to carry the assignment over to the second semester, thus has five more months to correct the problems. If this would have happen at the end of the semester or the grade would have been a factor in pass/fail for the course; this conversation may have been considerably different. Strictly from a teacher's perspective, this is a mine-field-project because of the grade component. I need to map out the mines. Suggestions are welcome. --JimmyButler (talk) 15:22, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

To be honest, Wikipedia generally doesn't do a bad job of policing itself in most areas (though there are some significant exceptions). It's difficult to see how we could have prevented this from happening, as we're all operating in a public arena that relies on a principle of open access, but the error was caught fairly quickly and is now being corrected so from WP's perspective the system is working. I can obviously appreciate that from your perspective things must be seen rather differently, but I don't think you should be too worried about your decision to link grades to WP assessments providing you retain a veto. Having now seen one of the drawbacks of the GA system (as well as, hopefully, some of its strengths), perhaps as long as it's made clear to the students that this sort of thing happens in a real-world environment and there may be occasions where you have to exert discretion, such an event needn't be disastrous. Strombollii clearly realised the review was inadequate, and I believe others would too in the same situation, so if such a thing happened again the grade could be withheld until the review has had a second pair of eyes over it. You can raise any concerns at WT:GAN, or there's a list of GA mentors here that can be contacted.

As a teacher myself I understand your concerns - you've relinquished a large degree of control over your students, but still bear the responsibility for their performance. If you haven't already seen JBM's essays (here and here) on his first experience with us, they might be useful. EyeSerene^talk 18:06, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Contributing to Wikipedia can be very educational. When I read a newspaper, I sometimes find myself saying "according to whom?" as if I were reviewing the neutrality of a Wikipedia article. One learns subtle things about real life in a microcosm: disagreement, tribalism, miscommunication; yet also aspiration, collaboration, generosity.

I had a schoolteacher who once gave me a lower mark than someone else in my class for essentially the same answer. When I pointed this out and said "That's not fair", he replied "Life isn't fair". It is one of the most memorable things any of my teachers said to me :) Geometry guy 19:01, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Yep. Second most important lesson I ever learned (exceeded only by "if you're halfway through hell, keep going") Cam ^(Chat) 05:57, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Osteochondritis dissecans

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Osteochondritis dissecans This is a serious candidate. A snap-shot of before and after adoption illustrates an amazing transformation. If he makes it .... I promised a parade. If he makes it, I'll put on a big hat, and marched down the halls blowing a whistle while twirling a baton! --JimmyButler (talk) 00:41, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm documenting this and legally binding you to your word. Just thought I'd let you know. :-) Food_Puma 06:45, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm crushed that this has yet to happen.--Yohmom (talk) 00:27, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Seconded. Strombollii (talk) 02:05, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Banker Horse

... is a gem and has reached FA, thus can be removed from this list. --Ettrig (talk) 18:27, 17 March 2009 (UTC)