Airplaneman

Airplaneman (talk · contribs · count) Hello fellow Wikipedians. I am submitting this review to see how I'm doing and what I need improvement on. I unsuccessfully ran for adminship way back in March and received valuable feedback, which I used to improve my editing. I said I would be back once the issues raised were addressed. I believe I have addressed all but one of them (the quality of some of the Good Articles I have nominated successfully—I'm working on it!), but seeing what many users go through in RFA, I am not considering a rerun anytime soon :). So how am I doing? Airplaneman ✈ 19:24, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Questions

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

   I contribute to anything that interests me, basically. I often patrol new pages, wiki-gnome, am a regular at RFA and requests for page protection, and occasionally drop by TFD. Of the WikiProjects I am a member of, I am most active within WP:APPLE's scope. I review pages for Good Article status, all of which can be found at User:Airplaneman/GArevs. (Any tips on how to review better?) I am most proud of my work on MacBook Pro because I made major content contributions to expand and clean it up to ultimately bring it to Good Article status. I've also revamped Toshiba Qosmio, Comparison of Macintosh models, and Percy Jackson & the Olympians. I have successfully improved and nominated Mac Pro, The Sea of Monsters, and The Titan's Curse for Good Article status. (The latter two were criticized in my RFA for their subpar quality; it would be nice if tips could be given for improvement to GA standards.)

2. Have you been in any disputes 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 cannot recall any recent disputes which have caused me stress. I am happy to say that I have not been involved in any super-stressful disputes during my editing career, although disputes in general, stressful or not, are almost unavoidable. That is the nature of collaboration. To take from my RFA, I can remember one time where a conflict caused me a bit of stress. I was involved in a dispute over section headings for the MacBook Pro article. The discussions can be found at User talk:Airplaneman/Archive 1#MBP and Talk:MacBook Pro/Archive 4#Model Headings. I tried to keep a level head and look at both sides of the situation while avoiding heating up the discussion as much as possible and still being able to prove my point. The matter was resolved peacefully. I guess a few editors have also caused me stress through disputes. Most notably, mono and I used to disagree quite a bit, but we now get along fairly well. To deal with it, I just stayed calm and held my ground while trying to understand why the dispute was happening in the first place. It has worked so far.

Reviews

I know Mr Airplaneman only for a few weeks. My opinion is that he is doing an excellent work in Wikipedia,and the most important, he is always willing to help patiently new wikipedians. Wikipedia English is lucky to have the services of a man, with such rare positive qualities, such as Airplaneman. I strongly believe that he deserves some kind of promotion from his superior, for the benefit of wikipedia. CHRISTAKIS DEMOSTHENOUS (talk) 09:10, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, not doing a full review here but to answer your question on your GA's, the main problem that I see is that it does not really fulfill criteria 3a of the GA criteria as it is missing some important sections vital for a book articles. Some include themes, publication history, setting and anything else you can think of.Derild4921☼ 23:50, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• You've done some excellent work lately, especially with WP:APPLE and MacBook Pro. You have also been doing an excellent job with vandal-fighting and new page patrolling. Keep it up! ~NerdyScienceDude (✉ • ✐ • ✍) 02:57, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your accusation about the edit I just made on the page David is silly. I was improving the accuracy of a heading. Not "vandalizing" anything.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 160.39.35.50 (talk • contribs)

• I've known Airplaneman for as long as i've been working in the same project as him, and i feel he has done great for the project, i've seen good work.

Keep it up, Cheers Dwayne was here! ♫ 18:21, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

By User:Royalbroil

I supported you before so I would continue support. The best thing that I can do right now is ask questions and give some advice:

• 1) What have you done to address the issues raised in your previous RFA?
  • Let's see… the majority of opposes focused around general experience and lack of any significant content contributions. I have addressed the former by brushing up on my policy knowledge and continuing my editing here. I have also waded into more xFD discussions, participating occasionally; most of my deletion discussion contributions are to TFD. The latter I have addressed with my work on MacBook Pro, which I revamped, expanded, and successfully brought to good article status. Additionally, I have tried to improve the overall quality of my article creations.
• 2) What new areas have you gained more experience in that proves that you can learn things without advice? If none, seek out some areas or work on areas where you have minimal experience. For me, that meant that I needed to do spend time on commenting at xFD and working on images with copyright problems. Look at what it got me, I'm now a Commons admin too!
  • As explained in my previous answer, I have expanded my contributions in the xFD. I also have begun to regularly review good article nominations, and a few months ago, collaborated with mono and others to revive WP:APPLE. Other than that, I have continued to build and expand upon my contributions prior to my first RFA.
• 3) Advice - To be successful in an RFA, the key is to be very slow and do your research before answering any question. They are testing your ability to do research before jumping at an answer without looking. No one knows everything - I don't either and I've been an admin for years. Besides, things change anyhow and old rationales don't cut it anymore. Wikipedians want admins who will look up anything that they're not intimately familiar with before making an incorrect action. When someone asks you how to deal with a sample situation, it usually means that they ran into that situation and that they have issues with how it was solved. So check out their edit history to try to find that situation. But don't be so exact as to cut and paste answers from policy and guidelines - rewrite in your own words. Royalbroil 13:38, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your review RoyalBroil. Airplaneman ✈ ^Review? 07:04, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome. Their is no right answers and what you said is convincing to me. Whenever someone fails at an RFA, reviewers want to see how/what this person has gained in experience since their last RFA. If you're thinking about another RFA, you could ask someone(s) who opposed you (and is still active) if their opinion has changed based on where you're at now. Royalbroil 00:17, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Review by Nomader

Well you dropped by my editor review and left me a short little blurb, so I figure the least that I can do is return the favor.

• I reviewed your RfA-- I probably would have voted neutral. Today, I would readily support but with one or two caveats.
  • I've always felt that content creation is one of the most important aspects of any RfA, it shows that the candidate really understands how to put together a good article and can understand problems in content disputes by understanding how articles should really be built. Looking at one of your GAs that was brought up in the RfA so much, The Titan's Curse, I can bring up a few suggestions just at a cursory glance. The reception section is almost completely quotations, which are fine to really emphasize a point that can't be summarized through your own prose, but shouldn't be the entire section. The two-line "Awards" section should be merged into the critical reception section as a sub-section, and the Audiobook section really should be expanded if there are any available sources. You have more content contributions than most, however, and your work is overall commendable. Just remember to always look back at your work and try to improve it.
  • By your personality, you're an outstanding editor. I reviewed a ton of your recent talk page notes, and you always deal with people in a positive light. And just saying, your closing statement at your RfA was total class. You're outstanding at dealing with your fellow editors, and your interactions of late earn an A+ from me.
  • Your GA reviews have been thorough and show a good understanding of policy. No problems there.
  • I reviewed a couple of your more recent AfD comments and again, they showed a good understanding of policy.
• Well, I've looked over your contributions with a fine-toothed comb and they were pretty damn impressive. With a few caveats regarding your GAs, I'd readily support you at an RfA. Nomader ^(Talk) 14:52, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the thorough review, Nomader! I'll take your suggestions and implement them. Thanks again, Airplaneman ✈ 19:53, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your edits are very useful and awesome around this site! I see a future admin!!! --Hello, I'm a Wikipedian! (talk) 20:43, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]