User:AirshipJungleman29/Essays

A place of relaxation, contemplation, and harmony.

GA process[edit]

Relevant guidelines

Relevant discussions:

Closing details

If there is no response from any editor on the GAR page, and no substantive improvements on the article itself, I will close the GAR after a week.
If the GAR page has been responded to, but any improvements to the article have stalled or not started, I will give two weeks from the last indication of intent before closing.
If an editor is continually working on the article without it reaching the GA criteria, up to three months will be given before closing.

Saving barnstar

{| style="border: 2px solid {{{border|#8000FF}}}; background-color: {{{color|#FFFAF0}}};" |
|rowspan="2" style="vertical-align:middle;" | [[File:GA barnstar.png|100px]]
|rowspan="2" |
|style="font-size: x-large; padding: 0; vertical-align: middle; height: 1.1em;" | '''The Good Article Rescue Barnstar'''
|-
|style="vertical-align: middle; border-top: 2px solid gray;" | This is presented to you by [[WP:GAR|the GAR process]] in recognition of your sterling work in helping [[Example]] retain its Good Article status. Please feel free to display the GA icon on your userpage. Keep up the good work! ~~~~
|}

GAN posts

Posting here to encourage participation in reassessments from more people than the regulars at the GAR page. These are older discussions where improvement is not ongoing and which could use more participation.

*{{ Annotated link | ARTICLENAME| wedge=[[Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/ARTICLENAME/n|'''(link to reassessment)''']] }}

Any comments on the above would be useful. Many thanks, ~~~~

DYK[edit]

{{A note}} {{ping|NOMINATOR}} I don't find the hook that interesting, as ... ; as DYK slots are currently under high demand, I won't be promoting it. Other promoters may disagree. ~~~~

RfA criteria[edit]

Adapted from Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/Tails Wx:

In the absence of specific technical reasons for the mop, or a personal reason to support, I like to see evidence that a potential administrator knows how to evaluate improvements to high-level content, because while administrators do not directly adjudicate on specific content disputes, they do indirectly—judging on conduct issues such as WP:TE at ANI, closing discussions such as RfCs and XfDs, evaluating whether to place a block or not—all of these can involve assessing content policies like WP:WEIGHT, WP:BALANCE, WP:SYNTH, WP:ONUS, WP:NOT, WP:BLP etc.

There is no easy way, to my mind, of assessing whether a candidate can do that within a single question at RfA. Normally, I look to whether the candidate has significant content creations, especially FA. Borderline candidates have only one or two GAs, which may show evidence of high-quality engagement with content, or may not. Perhaps there are a couple of the content policies above which these GAs could be improved in relation to?

It is the hallmark of a good adminstrator that they are always open-minded, but also confident in their decisions. I would be satisfied if the candidate looked over this article they have invested a lot of time into, and thought "hmm, actually, it doesn't meet an FA criterion, and that part can definitely be improved." I would also be satisfied if they said "no, I don't think this article can get to FA, because there aren't the requisite sources", or if they said "yes, it's good enough, and here's why" — all of these responses would be met with an immediate support. The only thing that wouldn't would be a response that showed no interest in grappling with the finer points of content policies—if they don't do that at their RfA, why would they do it at AfD, in RfCs, or at ANI?

Again, this is a reflection of my personal, entirely subjective criteria. Others may disagree, or say that the candidate has no intention of getting involved in the areas above. That doesn't really matter to me—I feel like I should trust an admin to get involved wherever their community-granted authority allows them to.

Closures[edit]

I strongly believe in the primacy of WP:NOTAVOTE, and the ability of closers to evaluate arguments, discounting those that are weak and recognising those which are convincing (WP:ACD). Closures of dicussions I have executed:

Closures
Page title	Discussion title	Closure date	Link	Notes
George Maharis	Arrest (2023)	1 July 2023	Diff
BC United	Split	1 July 2023	Diff
ANO 2011	RfC: Infobox	8 July 2023	Diff	Questioned by voorts on my talk page. Resolved to the satisfaction of all.
Donald Trump	RfC on Jan 6 deaths	11 July 2023	Diff
Robert F. Kennedy Jr.	RFC on use of terms in first sentence	20 July 2023	Diff
Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not	Counterproposal to RFC on WP:NOTCHANGELOG clarification	21 July 2023	Diff
Ben Roberts-Smith	disgraced his country	27 July 2023	Diff
List of highest-grossing films based on television series	RFC for Inclusion criteria	28 July 2023	Diff	Article went to AfD, per close.
Science fiction Western	Merge	1 August 2023	Diff
Donald Trump	Multi-part proposal for content on E. Jean Carroll v. Trump	8 August 2023	Diff	Closure requester contested my choice of Not done at WP:CR; they asked another editor to take over; that editor was requested to recuse from closing.
Nazi Germany	RfC about the usage of 'German' and 'Nazi'	20 September 2023	Diff
Mykola Kostomarov	RFC on the lead 2	25 October 2023	Diff
Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard	NYT and LGBT-related subjects (yet again)	13 November 2023	Diff
Genocides in history (1946 to 1999)	Request for Comment: 1948 Palestinian expulsion	2 March 2024	Diff
Bangladesh genocide	RFC on the victims of the Bangladesh genocide	7 March 2024	Diff
Monarchy of Canada	RFC: Should it be mentioned in this article, that the Canadian monarch resides in the United Kingdom?	14 April 2024	Diff