Wikipedia:Editor review/Jinkinson

Jinkinson

Jinkinson (talk · contribs · count) Hi, I've been on Wikipedia since January 27 of this year. Since then, I have made over 3,000 edits, and have created over 70 articles that still exist. However, if you go on my userpage you'll notice there are some things I regret having done. Jinkinson (talk) 02:06, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

Questions

1. What are your primary contributions to Wikipedia? Are there any about which you are particularly pleased? Why?

   Historically it was just creating articles (I'm particularly proud of Diane Harper and Autism omnibus trial, the former of which was a DYK), but more recently I have become a recent changes and new pages feed patroller as well, and even more recently started using Stiki. I have nominated many pages for speedy deletion, most (but not all) of them pure vandalism.

2. 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.

   Not really. One major problem was when I created an article, Coming Together (advertisement), which was egregiously one sided--basically just a hit piece, as User:Novangelis proceeded to point out. I then apologized and Novangelis has since left me alone, stating that he doesn't really care about that topic.

3. 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?

   Yes, I am thinking of, eventually, running for adminship, and I want to get a better idea of what (other than edit count) distinguishes me from people who are ready to request it, like Zad68. I was once informed that I have violated BLP policy on "the BLPs of academics". [1] I would like someone to tell me exactly where and how I did so, so that I may fix it.

Reviews

The first thing I noticed is your userbox contains a lot of personal information that isn't really necessary. We don't need to know your age or the colour of your hair - as long as you can act maturely like an adult and improve the encyclopedia, that's all that really matters.

I had a look at Coming Together (advertisement). The main problem I see is not so much POV, rather that the prose doesn't flow particularly well. It's just a selection of opinions thrown together. What I would do is start off describing the advert, the background to it, details of production and first broadcast. Put the "Message" section in prose and make sure information (especially quotes) is reliably sourced. Then add the reactions afterwards. Include any positive reactions (assuming there were any).

Another problematic article is Fellini's Pizza. It's short, and cites only two reliable, independent sources. Old Airport Road is even shorter. The problem with creating short stubs is someone can easily come along and send them to AfD. Even if it turns out your articles are of a notable subject, it wastes time for everyone having the discussion. I don't create new articles very often, but when I do, I try and put as much information as I possibly can into the first draft. Have a look at 3 October Festival which I created last week.

I ran your username through the Admin score tool and got a score of -84, which basically means it's too early to run for an RfA. Having a recent request for autopatrolled denied is pretty much guaranteed to make any RfA get closed per WP:SNOW in very little time. A more important question for you, though, is, exactly what do you want to do with the tools. We are lacking volunteers at Files for deletion and there is a large backlog for stale Articles for creation drafts (about 45,000 last time I checked). To work with these, you will need a very good understanding of all the basic policies, particularly copyright violation, notability and verifiability. Reviewing articles at AfC or participating in AfD debates is one way to get involved in this - getting involved with discussion at the Village Pump is another. Do bear in mind that a number of long standing editors have created numerous featured articles on Wikipedia without going anywhere near the admin tools, so don't assume it's essential to have a long lasting Wiki-career.

I hope that's useful - if not, let me know and I'll see what else I can comment on. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 08:42, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback. I don't really care about the short articles I have created; what I want to know is how good my longer articles are, and what I can do to improve them. In particular, my biographies of scientists are a topic in which I am especially interested. Also, I recently was granted autopatrolled rights--I guess second time's the charm. Ultimately, I am trying to help improve Wikipedia's coverage of scientific topics, and have recently focused on autism research/researchers. I want to know if I am succeeding and how I can do better. Jinkinson talk to me 01:25, 10 October 2013 (UTC)