Wikipedia:Editor review/NE2
User:NE2[edit]
NE2 (talk · contribs) I joined about three months ago, and found a topic to do heavy work on about a month later. Since then, I've been doing almost all my work on improving and writing articles about state highways in Virginia. I would like to know if there is anything I can improve on. I would also like to know if it would be possible to bring any of these to featured status, as I only have access to one major source on these roads. To that end, I may do best with a major road like the Capital Beltway or the Norfolk-Portsmouth Bridge-Tunnel, for which I can find other sources, and which others may be interested in. --NE2 00:33, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
Reviews
- Hello there. This page is for editor review, if you want a review about an article you are working on, see Wikipedia:Peer review.
- Your edit summary is good enough, although you could use them when editing other user's talk pages, as that informs them about what are you talking about before they check the edit.
- As for your edit work, since you concentrate in those topics, I can only suggest you to learn about inline references (see m:Cite/Cite.php), and add as many references as possible, since featured article should be well documented.
- Continue this way, and you should have no problem improving articles to get them to good or featured status. Good luck! -- ReyBrujo 00:02, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
- Thanks for the review. Are you saying that when you get the orange "new messages" bar, it shows the edit summary? I have not seen this. I have in fact been using inline references (see State Route 337), but at the present time I am concentrating on starting articles with general information about the roads. --NE2 00:14, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
- No, but most times we click the "last edit" link to see what has been added. Also, it is helpful to quickly locate a determined revision in a talk page. I did not check that article for references, as I interpreted you considered Interstate 495 (Capital Beltway) your best work, sorry for the misunderstanding. You should consider wrapping references tags with a div of class "references-small" to minimize the size, like here. Also, consider using {{cite web}} and {{cite book}} when creating them, as they accept more parameters that will help the article show in a cleaner way (including page number, url, access date, etc). Thanks for correcting me, though! -- ReyBrujo 01:05, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
- Thanks for the review. Are you saying that when you get the orange "new messages" bar, it shows the edit summary? I have not seen this. I have in fact been using inline references (see State Route 337), but at the present time I am concentrating on starting articles with general information about the roads. --NE2 00:14, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
- Your diligence at WP:VASH is to be commended. However, we have had some concerns with your not supporting and adhering to consensus. It is perfectly okay to disagree with consensus, but Wikipedia operates by consensus. Without consensus we cannot get anything done. Thus, your following consensus would be appreciated, even when you disagree. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 21:50, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
Comments
- View this user's edit count using a PHP version of Interiot's tool.
Questions
- Of your contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
- I am pleased by the "completionist" method in which I am tackling Virginia's state highways. I hope that when I am done, every current or former primary state highway will have either its own article or a redirect to another, as well as details on its history. Thanks to VDOT's placement of all of its meeting minutes since 1920 online, this is an achievable task. --NE2 00:40, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
- Have you been in any conflicts over editing in the past 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?
- I have not been in any major conflicts, though I seem to have come in at the end of a somewhat bloody naming conventions war. Though I do not agree with its outcome, I nevertheless believe that intra-state consistency (rather than inter-state consistency, which is the reason given for the current convention) is a good thing, and so I moved all the articles to the new convention. Since then, I have had to inform others of the linking considerations of WP:USSH, but have never gotten in any conflicts there. --NE2 00:40, 6 October 2006 (UTC)