This is an archive of past discussions with User:48JCL. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
Thank you for your GA review of Minnesota State Highway 36. I'm wondering where you found basic references in the article? To my knowledge all of the sources are cited with a template, I would appreciate you pointing out where they are if I've missed something.
Hi 48JCL, I noticed the note you left at WP:GAMENTOR, and I'm willing to mentor you. We can do this in a couple of ways: I can pick out a couple of articles you might want to review, or you can choose one yourself; we'll then go through the review process together. What sounds best to you? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 12:00, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
Okay! When starting a review, most people use a reviewing template: I personally like {{GAList2}}, but all the others are perfectly fine. What's important is that they are only a guide—you should aim to go beyond just ticking them off. Personally, I nearly always find that I can comment on GA criteria 1, 2, and 3. Here's what I look for in relation to each criterion:
Well-written: I read the article top-to-bottom. If there is anything that doesn't look right (grammar, spelling, syntax, punctuation) I either comment at the review or am bold and fix it myself. Then, I look at the Manual of Style (MOS) pages the article needs to comply with. This one isn't a work of fiction and it doesn't have lists, so it just needs to comply with MOS:LEAD, MOS:LAYOUT, and MOS:WTW. You should actively try to find places where the article doesn't match the MOS.
Verifiable:
First, you need to check whether the sources used are all reliable (helpful links for this are WP:RSP and the archives of WP:RSN). If a source isn't considered reliable, make sure that the nominator can justify having it in the article.
Second, you need to actually open some of the citations to check that a) the article is actually supported by the citations and doesn't include original research, and b) doesn't plagiarised (copy-pasted, or closely paraphrased) the sources. It's good practice to note the sources you have checked in the review, as this check (we call it a "source spot-check") is required in reviews. If you can't access some of the sources, ask the nominator to provide quotes.
Broad this is fairly easy—does the article include everything you expect to be told as a reader? Does it go into too much detail at any point? This is a bit subjective.
Neutral like you did with the MOS pages, check that the article meets everything in WP:NPOV.
Stable just make sure there haven't been edit wars or big disputes recently (also check the talk page)
Illustrated if the article has no images, try and see if some could be added; if it does, go to their pages to check that all looks ok with the basic parameters (year, source, author) and that the license looks alright. You'll rarely find problems here, but it's good to check.
In general, if you've checked something, note it down in the review, even if nothing was wrong in the end. This helps assure people that you have actually reviewed the article. I think that's a good starting point—how about you continue with the review now, and ping me when you think you're done (or earlier, if you need an opinion!) so I can look it over? Best of luck! ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 16:00, 25 May 2024 (UTC)
I have been chickening out of my first GA for months and suddenly, because of you, I kinda sorta got half a GA without even realizing it. Last week at work was gnarly and my self esteem has been bouncing around like the logo on the DVD menu. This was such a nice surprise! Thanks for all you do. I'm excited to see what articles you write next! Crunchydillpickle🥒 (talk) 00:23, 27 May 2024 (UTC)
Hello 48JCL and welcome to the Military history WikiProject! As you may have guessed, we're a group of editors working to improve Wikipedia's coverage of topics related to military history.
A few features that you might find helpful:
Our navigation box points to most of the useful pages within the project.
The project Academy has lots of useful information about editing and writing military history articles. One very useful introductory course to get you started is Writing a good stub.
If you would like to receive the project's monthly newsletter, The Bugle, please sign up here.
If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to ask any of the project coordinators or any other experienced member of the project, and we'll be happy to help you. Again, welcome, and we are looking forward to seeing you around! Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 15:52, 27 May 2024 (UTC)
Hi 48JCL! We're so happy you wanted to play to learn, as a friendly and fun way to get into our community and mission. I think these links might be helpful to you as you get started.
Hi 48JCL! We're so happy you wanted to play to learn, as a friendly and fun way to get into our community and mission. I think these links might be helpful to you as you get started.
I saw your signature at this AfD, which has gotten pretty heated, and thought – did they really tag this guy's !vote with citation needed and dubious? That would be a whole new level of badgering! Thankfully, it was just your signature, which gave me a good laugh. Toadspike[Talk]08:41, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
It's just useless. They made three edits 7 years ago. In addition, the edits introduced unsourced promotional content to a BLP, but your welcome makes no mentions of these concerns. -- Ponyobons mots20:20, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
48JCL, it would be more appropriate for you to request a G7 speedy deletion on both the Talk:Fear of bees/GA1 and Talk:Autocracy/GA3 pages, so they can be deleted, rather than request a second opinion; there's been very little done on the former review and nothing on the latter one. See WP:G7 for more information. Please note that I have already made an adjustment on the Talk:Autocracy page to help deal with that one, but the best thing is still the G7. Thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 18:05, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
Based on the "done" above, and the latest addition of a semi-retired template, I've gone ahead and G6'd both of these. Let me know if something else needs to be done. I don't think anything needs to be done with Federalist No. 8.--Floquenbeam (talk) 16:26, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
Hi 48JCL, I would just like to check in on this regarding Talk:Slowpoke (Pokémon)/GA1. You have carried out some defined Spot checks, but it is very unclear what the process means. What is a pass, if not a reliable source? How are you checking offline sources such as Millennial Monsters: Japanese Toys and the Global Imagination for original research and copyvio? CMD (talk) 13:20, 24 June 2024 (UTC)
Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.
The article has been assessed as Redirect-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.
Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for creation if you prefer.
If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.
