Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Articles for creation/Academy
Latest comment: 11 years ago by Kudpung in topic My comments
 | This page is for users working on the academy's administration. |
 | This project page does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||
| ||||||||
My comments
editRegarding the syllabus:
- I'm not really sure that having them know how to make AIV reports will be overly helpful (there aren't many vandals, who are reportable to AIV, which frequent AfC), maybe something about the username policy, username warnings & UAA would be more helpful as this they will definitely come across.
- Reviewing historical PROD, BLPPROD, CSD is only going to work if the page wasn't deleted so this is going to lead to a fairly one sided view of historical tagging.
- "question or challenge their contested deletions" there isn't a lot of contested deletions which go on at AFC. I think it would be better if the communication stand focuses on accepting and declining submissions rather than deletion.
- The last dot point in the fail criteria for Application will need to be changed to AFC (rather than NPP).
There is probably other further reading which would be helpful but I can't think of anything of the top of my head (maybe deletion policy?). Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 23:32, 19 October 2013 (UTC)
- Thanks for pointing those out. I think I've addressed them now. As regards the syllabus, it's a broad outline and open to instructors to interpret and use their own actual teaching methods. I'm fairly sure that they will cover anything not specifically listed. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:14, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
- FWIW, I think this is an excellent idea, but my question would be whether or not potential reviewers would want to "jump through the hoops" of completing a training course, and instead do something else that doesn't require a training course, which would serve only to lengthen the backlog that already has a shortage of reviewers. That said, bad reviews are worse than no review or a wait for one, so I think in principle, this is a good idea. Ultimately, it would be best if experienced Wikipedians would each take 5 articles/month or so, but I suppose that is unlikely to happen. Anyway, I am willing to help out in whatever free time I have on Wikipedia. -- Go Phightins! 20:04, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
- This isn't intended as a precursor to any obligatory requirement for training. Like the CVUA and the NPP school, it's really for anyone who would like to review but feels they would like some training, and for those who have been recommended to go on a course because they are getting their reviews wrong too often. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 07:21, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
- FWIW, I think this is an excellent idea, but my question would be whether or not potential reviewers would want to "jump through the hoops" of completing a training course, and instead do something else that doesn't require a training course, which would serve only to lengthen the backlog that already has a shortage of reviewers. That said, bad reviews are worse than no review or a wait for one, so I think in principle, this is a good idea. Ultimately, it would be best if experienced Wikipedians would each take 5 articles/month or so, but I suppose that is unlikely to happen. Anyway, I am willing to help out in whatever free time I have on Wikipedia. -- Go Phightins! 20:04, 20 October 2013 (UTC)