User:Gwernol/Chris ER

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Editor review for User:Chrislk02

[edit] General comments

Chris, for some general thoughts of mine on becoming an admin, see User:Gwernol/AdminTips

[edit] Edit counts

First some stats, from Interiot's edit counter on January 5, 2007:

Username        Chrislk02
Total edits     12076
Distinct pages edited   6308
Average edits/page      1.914
First edit      12:38, 24 April 2006
        
(main)  5561
Talk    197
User    975
User talk       4031
Image   12
Template        250
Template talk   95
Help    1
Category        27
Category talk   5
Wikipedia       815
Wikipedia talk  94
Portal  13

12,000+ total edits is good and you've now been around the project for nine months, which are good. You are active in most areas of the project which is good.

Nothing much to worry about here.

[edit] Recent contributions

I've chosen some of your recent contributions at random. Here's some thoughts on them:

  • [1] Good contribution
  • [2] well cited improvement to the article; nice job
  • [3] This is fine, though I would have liked a slightly more solid nomination. I might have written it as: "Original research. No reliable sources to provide verifiability or to show notability". Its always good to provide full policy reasoning and links as it makes it easier for new users coming to the debate to understand what is going on. That said, you were quite right to bring this to AfD; in fact I added my Delete opinion to it.
  • [4] yes indeed.
  • [5] This is an interesting one. I don't know how I would come down on this myself. Your comment is fine; I would have liked to see you base it on some specific policies or guidelines.
  • [6] is fine, with good follow-up warning to the user [7].
  • You did a good job rescuing the Umakant Sharma article from speedy deletion. You've kept a calm tone in a somewhat contentious AfD debate and even if the article doesn't end up being kept your work should be via the Cheating in Chess article, so I think you've done everything right here.
  • [8] is overall a good job, adding sources and refining the language. I would nitpick over the phrase "Lasers are an ideal substitute for the UHP lamps" where "ideal" seems a little WP:POV for my taste, but this is a minor comment.
  • [9] just one example of some good maintenance work you've been doing on the WikiProject Aircraft
  • [10] for this I would definitely have liked to see an opinion based in quoted policy. I'm rarely convinced by the argument that "I've seen worse articles" - that's never an excuse for keeping any particular article; there are always worse articles on Wikipedia :-) You'd have made a stronger case if you could have found some additional references or been able to show how the article fits into policy.
  • [11] (plus a number of other edits to related articles). A couple of issues here. First in the OR edit you missed out the second closing brace; I would have expected you to catch and fix that. Second your edit summary suggests you are doing this for technical reasons (to "de-orphan" an article) rather than content reasons (e.g. because OR is often taught to students studying for the degree). I see he article subsequently got prod'ed - although I see your involvement in it was only to try to de-orphan it. On a more general level I see you have been doing a lot of de-orphaning work. It seems useful, as long as you are careful to make sure the linkages are justified. I haven't seen examples of a problem so far.
  • [12] good nomination and I like the fact that you clarified your delete opinion like that
  • [13] yes and a good follow-up warning [14]
  • [15] Good work here; you argue your point in a civil manner and quote the appropriate policy to back up your position.
  • [16] good advise
  • [17] Good catch of some relatively subtle vandalism
  • [18] Another valid vandalism revert
  • [19] Interesting. Always good to see AfD contributors who are willing to change their opinion as the debate evolves. However your original opinion again came down to "there's worse stuff out there" which is not a strong argument
  • I went though some of your work on DYK. I'm not familiar with this process, but you seem to have been making good contributions there
  • [20] This is fine
  • [21] Good call
  • [22] I think you missed this one. Looks like you should have reverted back over the previous three edits to get back to an unvandalized version. Its easy to make this mistake with articles suffering from a lot of IP vandalism like this one. I've done it myself on several occasions. Once you've reverted with the tools and warned the editor, its always worth going back and checking through the history to see if you might need to go back further. This is by no means a critical mistake, but its something to watch out for in the future
  • [23] Fine

[edit] Overall verdict

First thanks for much improved use of vandal warnings. I didn't find any problems in that area, and I looked at several ones not mentioned above. In general I think you are doing a great job. You're making strong contributions across a good range of articles, you're continuing to improve articles in your field of knowledge and continuing to put great effort into vandal fighting. I like your contributions to AfD discussions, though I would like to see you tighten up your opinions with more calls to specific policies and guidelines - this gives your opinions more weight and demonstrates your knowledge of policy and how it gets applied. You are civil and do a good job of communicating with users.

I would not jump into another RfA just yet. Another month to 6 weeks feels about right. You don't want to be over eager for the tools (believe me, its a real mixed blessing :-) and I think that demonstrating a sustained commitment to the good practices you have developed will give other a lot of confidence in your work. If you went for an RfA today, I'd support it. If you waited a while longer (and continued along the path you are on) I'd be honored to nominate you myself.