Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Good articles/Recruitment Centre/Recruiter Central

Feedback

Hi Dom, thanks for taking the initiative on this project. Generally speaking, I like your proposal. I think the first three criteria for "Becoming a Recruiter" are good ones, but "Has not been involved in any conflict (directed towards you)" may not be practical. It's encouraged, for example, for reviewers to step out of a review that has become contentious and ask for a second reviewer to finish it off, so I'm not sure that "refusing to continue reviewing a nomination" should be grounds for disqualification for mentoring. Speaking more broadly, I think it's difficult to avoid conflict in the long run at GA (as in any area of Wikipedia). It would also be awkward if mid-training, a recruiter is disqualified from the process because one of their reviews has become contentious.

As for the recommended process for training, I like the idea of the quiz. You might also include a link here to WP:GACN, which I think is very helpful to a new reviewer in sorting out what is and isn't in the GA criteria. I think after showing a model GA review or two to the mentee, though, they could directly start some reviews with the mentor watching over for a second opinion. It's not brain surgery, so any errors made could easily be fixed, and leaving some "missing issues" seems potentially cumbersome and awkward for all three participants. (One potential problem is that many GA nominations just don't have that many issues that need fixing.)

Just my two cents. Thanks again for your work on this. -- Khazar2 (talk) 13:55, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks!--Dom497 (talk) 23:55, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Some ideas from me. I will be potentialy out of internet contact in a few weeks so may not be much help.

Have it as another tab on the tabs already on GA pages

Specifically go out to recruit people, either dropping personal notes at talk pages, wikiprojects and the signpost (maybe even a watchlist header if you can swing it)

Advertise it as purely to get inexperienced editors reviewing. Make it clear that there will be help right the way through the process and they can't really make too much of a mess.

See if you can get some regulars who are willing to have their articles reviewed by these new reviewers. That should help alleviate any biting issues. The bonus for the regulars is that they will get there articles reviewed faster.

I would not treat this as a way to clear the backlog, but to get those reviewers who have considered reviewing, but were a little unsure whether they could. This has the added bonus of increaing reviewer numbers (and so reducing the backlog) and making sure the new reviewers devlelop good habits from the start.

End of ramble. AIRcorn (talk) 09:49, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks!--Dom497 (talk) 18:43, 30 May 2013 (UTC)