Wikipedia:Editor review/Corvoe
Corvoe (talk · contribs · count) I've been editing here since 2009, but was fairly inactive from early to mid-2013. I recently acquired reviewer rights and already have rollback rights, but I'm curios as to how people think I'm doing as an editor overall, partially because I'd like to apply for adminship in the future. I figure I can always improve. Corvoe (speak to me) 17:34, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
Questions
- What are your primary contributions to Wikipedia? Are there any about which you are particularly pleased? Why?
- I largely contribute to film-related articles, be it films themselves or the people behind them. My proudest contributions consist of my recent creations of accolade pages for In Bruges, Her (film), Gravity (film), and American Hustle (2013 film), my total rework of Jeff Wadlow, as well as my work on 12 Years a Slave (film), Paul Walker, and Moon (film). I largely jump from article to article, though.
- Have you been in editing disputes or do you feel other users have caused you stress? How have you dealt with it and how will you deal with it in the future? If you have never been in an editing dispute, explain how you would respond to one.
- Yes to both. I've attempted to keep as much of a level head as possible, and frequently consult the talk pages of the users involved in the argument. I will argue my point, but if the consensus is against my opinion, I completely accept it and work to uphold that consensus. I don't see a point in continuing the argument.
- What do you want to get out of this editor review? Are you thinking of running for adminship? Would you like feedback on a specific area of your editing? Or would you just like a general review of your edits?
- I'm definitely considering running for adminship at some point in the future, but I'm more looking for this review to help me improve so I can make more progress towards this eventual goal, and towards being a better editor in general.
Reviews
- Hi there, I'm going to do a quick review based on your contributions. I'm going to split it into 4 major categories and separate everything out by that. Those 4 categories are: Quantity, or how many edits do you have; Quality, the quality of those edits; Knowledge of Policy and Conduct towards others.
1. Quantity:
- You're doing pretty well here thus far. I know if you're going for admin at some point, people like to see super high edit counts, often in the 20,000 range at minimum, and I do know somebody who will not support an admin request without at least 40,000 edits under your belt. Maybe there was a mistake at some point, but I'm seeing about 15,000 edits give or take a few, so if you are going for admin someday, I would maybe suggest increasing the amount of edits. With that said, as far as how you're doing now, I think you're doing well.
2. Quality
- I took a random sampling of 10 articles that you have had major contributions in, particularly focusing on the articles you've made. I understand that quality is pretty subjective, but I figured I would give it a try nonetheless. The work you have done on many of these articles is very impressive. The large scale edits you have made are all very good and I like that you focus on those particular pages as time goes on, much like what you did with The FP article. That article in particular does bring up a point that is a bit of a pet peeve for me personally and that is when lots of edits are done on a page that accomplish what one larger scale edit is. Much like other things on this review, you can choose to change that or not, because it is something that I think bothers only me. Another thing I would focus on is making main pages for movies if at all possible. If you're going for admin someday, a lot of people like seeing Barnstars and generally for one to get a barnstar, one has to do a fair amount of work on large and popular articles. I understand that is tricky though.
3. Knowledge of Policy
- I think this is an area you're doing extremely well in. A lot of your reversions and edits focused on conforming to standards cite exact policy, and this dates back a good ways in your user history. If there is one thing I would say you could do better at, I would say you could do a quick summary of what specific part of each policy the edit is conforming to. I think you're doing a good job and you can choose to change that around or not, but as a bit of a newbie, I think it's nice to have a summary of what part of an edit conforms to what specific policy.
4. Conduct Towards Others
- You do a really nice job of posting to a user's talk page upon each revert for vandalism and you seem to be doing a good job of being polite in the message there. Definitely a big fan of the fact that you don't just do "rvt for vandalism" and be done with it. I also really like that you make the distinction between reverting good faith edits and reverting vandals, and that you're sure to give tips in the edit summary for that revert, because I know way too many people who don't do that.
All in all, I think you're doing a really good job thus far and if you want to be an admin, you're well on your way. I would say continue doing as much as you can with the popular articles, see if you can take ownership or part ownership of one of these major articles in order to work towards the barnstar. Doing that you should be able to also rack up your edit count and that will help a lot with getting admin in the future. You're doing great work and I want to grow up to be just like you someday! :) Baltergeist (talk) 05:52, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
Considering your previous review (which also resulted in two reviews in one day!), I thought it made sense to focus on your contributions since then. I see that over the preceding 4 years you have exchanged a focus on music for film, created 44 new pages, gained autopatroller and reviewer rights, contributed to a Featured Article Candidate (Fuck (film)) and a Good Article Nomination (Iron Man 3) (both of which were successful), and had a nominated DYK posted to the home page (for The FP). Congrats on what looks like a great four years.
You appear to be a very concientious member of the community. Your talk page interactions are always civil, even when responding to users who are not (even when needlesly reported to the Admin noticeboard) and manage to maintain your sense of humor. Your arguments are typically evidence-based, citing and linking to appropriate statistics or providing direct quotes. You seem to always do your homework to double check policies and are quick to take responsibility, apologize, and learn from the experience when you discover you were in error. You are a team player, upholding consensus even when it might go against your initial position in the discussion. Although you may not have been awarded any barnstars, there are many instances of people giving you their thanks for your contributions.
In addition to your work on film and music articles, you have initiated and participated in two high-level WikiProject:Film discussions on article naming conventions, evidence of your attention to detail and efforts at article consistency. You seem to be very thoughtful when it comes to choosing to participate (or not) in discussions, and I see that you are quick to end debates early if you can (even if you initiated the debate).
I'm glad that your other reviewer was able to touch on quantity because the tool has been down for a few days for me. A snapshot of the distribution of your contributions might be helpful to show change over time; I'd be happy to add that here once the tool is working again if interested. --Morphovariant (talk) 17:34, 13 March 2014 (UTC)