User:VictorianMutant/Editor review
If it's been 2 weeks and you still haven't received an editor review from another editor, leave a message on my talk page and I will try to get you one ASAP unless I am on a wiki-break.
After noticing a backlog at the editor review page, I've decided to do something about it. Why? (1) Because requesting an editor review shows that the editor is willing to improve (2) I have well-defined ideas about what a good editor should be(even though I myself am new and am trying to improve). (3) Because it is a shame that there is a backlog- people shouldn't have to wait months to receive a review. So with that in mind, here is what I expect from those who want a review:
- You should have more than 500 edits.
- You should ideally opt in by creating User:(yourusername)/EditCounterOptIn.js with any content. This makes it easier to conduct the review.
- Come into the review process with an open mind. If you expect me to say "Wow, this user should be an admin and 'crat tomorrow..." well that's probably not going to happen. I'll tell you the good and the bad (and the ugly) as I see it, but I will try to be constructive because you are requesting the review and I am taking the time to do the review so you can be a better editor(which hopefully helps increase my contribution to Wikipedia).
So here is how I do my evaluation and the criteria I use:
- Civility towards the community: I look for recent blocks, civility issues, edit summaries(consistent and accurate), and edit wars.
- Article contributions: Everyone should have at least one article which is their baby- one article they can point to and say this is my article- it was crap before I touched and look at how it shines now!!!
- Edit count analysis: This is where a lot of editors would probably disagree with me, but I look at the pie graph, not total edits. I look for a high percentage in article space, but I also try to look at where other contributions are as well and what your goals are(i.e. if you are gunning for an RfA and you have 20 wikipedia edits, well that's not good either).
- RfA-worthiness: Would I support you in an RfA if you were nominated today. I'll be honest, unless you explicitly say you would never accept a nomination. (note: what is important to me in an RfA might not be what is important to the community and I'll tell you when I differ substantially.
- Final thoughts: This i where I make my final suggestions and also try to mention other things(if you have a weakness for grammatical or spelling errors or if you never cite sources. My goal is to help encourage editors, not discourage them or piss them off so they want to leave the project, so I try to be positive here.
Here is a list of editor reviews I've done: