User talk:Will381796

To someone well-deserving

		The Socratic Barnstar
		For being a straight-talking, impartial, and eloquent editor who actively supports the pursuit of truth. Cheers! Eustress (talk) 19:24, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Adoption

Hi. You seem like a rather experienced editor, but you are on a list of editors seeking adoption. Can you explain what you'd like to get from adoption? Perhaps I could help you out. --Gimme danger (talk) 19:27, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Re: GA review tips

A good GA review is one that can provide helpful information towards improving the article. Unlike FA, GA isn't at the top of the article quality hierarchy, so it's not necessary for articles to be completely combed over and for reviewers to be totally "anal-retentive" about every minute detail. However, the article should still look reasonably good, and mostly adhere to the manual of style. Generally, the more information that you can provide towards improving the article, the better. Even if the article mostly meets the criteria, if you can provide further insight into how the article might become featured at some point, that would help as well.

It helps to structure a review based on the six items listed at WP:WIAGA, and even link to that page in the review itself. You might also be able to point people to some other wiki help pages as well, based on other deficiencies in an article:

• If an article lacks reference citations, or if the citations don't follow consistent formatting, point them to WP:CITE. Reference citations should not consist solely of a link to a website; full citation information should be included (author, title, publisher, date of publication, date URL was retrieved). This is actually important so that, if the URL ever disappears (like they do quickly with Yahoo news links), the URL is not rendered useless and someone can still use the citation to track down information and perform additional research.
• If an article lacks a good, cohesive, and catching lead section, or the lead doesn't adequately summarize the article, point them to WP:LEAD.
• If there are section header issues, such as really long section header titles, or style issues, point them to WP:MSH.
• General style issues should be directed to the general manual of style page (WP:MOS).
• If there are a lot of external links that can/should be pruned, you can direct them to WP:EL.

Some other common issues that I've seen when reviewing GAs:

• Some really short sections. If there are a lot of sections or subsections with only 1-3 sentences, that's an indication that the article may have completeness issues (criterion #1).
• Many editors like to seriously overuse subsection headers. I've seen some articles with section, subsection, subsubsection, and even subsubsubsection headers. Such overuse, particularly if some of these subsection headers are very short and contain little information, are an indication of a general lack of organization.
• I come across some spelling and minor grammatical errors from time to time. If the article is overall good and only requires from 1-5 edits or so, I usually just make the correction and pass it (this is perfectly acceptable, as long as you don't make major contributions to the article; then you move from being a reviewer to being a contributor). But if I start making too many minor edits, then I stop and just start making notes about things, and pass them on to the editors.
• Editors love the {{main}} and {{seealso}} templates. These tend to be a bit overplaced in the article. Sometimes, you'll find them in between sections and paragraphs, and sometimes, you'll see two or three of these stacked up at the top of a section. Generally, these links only go at the top of a section (see WP:MOS), and links should be combined into one 'see also' statement if there is more than one link; not two separate 'see also' statements.

Hopefully, this gives you an idea for some of the more common things to look out for. You will probably be able to add to this list as you become more experienced. If you're not sure whether to pass or fail an article, there's the option to put a '2nd opinion' template up at WP:GAN, asking another reviewer to add his/her opinion.

Good luck! Dr. Cash (talk) 20:43, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Your GA review

I have taken your suggestions and completed several of the suggestions for your review of Lane Tech. Since I need proper permission to obtain photos of the school, I will not be able to obtain pictures for some time, but I will be happy to put up pictures of the school and events related to the school up asap. Mapletip (talk) 01:02, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and finished up those citations. Hope it looks good now :) Mapletip (talk) 05:09, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

The IP editor removing the citations was me as I wanted to clean it up a bit, they should all be cited now. Also, I have gone ahead and removed the clubs section and added information about clubs at the introductory paragraph. Let me know what you think. Mapletip (talk) 14:34, 16 April 2008 (UTC)