User talk:MarioJump83/Adopt

Hi Chicdat. Welcome to the MarioJump83's Adopt Guide. In here, I am going to try to guide you through your aspirations as best as I could. As your adopter, I will also be closely involved in your work to get you through things that you can't do for now - sometimes I will take in your side. If you have any trouble (and if you want me to handle your AfC work if you can't), you can ask me right on my talk page, as you prefer to do on-wiki discussions right now. In meantime, I will give you some questions to show what you clearly can do and what I fix to get you improved. Here are the things you are going to expect below:

First of all, I just wanted to say that you want Cyclone Owen to be a GA. Let me be clear, I also do. In fact, we are working together to make sure it is GA. However, I will be taking the most of the responsibility here - I will going to play major role in moving forward seriously. I will also nominate Cyclone Owen for GA. While this will make Cyclone Owen "my" GA, the credit will ultimately be yours. When Destroyeraa was blocked, I nominated his article, Hurricane Chris (2018), for GA. With some communication with Destroyeraa regarding Chris's GA, I was ultimately be able to get that article to GA, and I credited Destroyer for that reason. It will be the same situation here. Looking at my words here, I know that you have clear trouble getting Owen over the hump. In here, I want to tell that if you want to go over to the other articles like Cyclone Herold, you may meet the same trouble as in the Owen previously. So, I'll going to teach you some lesson on how to do GAs.

Edit: I want to also note that I am going to help you about reviewing. Generally, people are going to review GAs once they get enough GAs. Mario Jump 83! 12:51, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Second, I know that there is a formal advice to stay away from administrative areas, and the reasoning is that you don't have enough experience. I honestly don't believe that "enough experience" is the cause, as Destroyeraa joined a month before you and guess what? They have more advanced rights than you. (Disclaimer: I have all of that rights.) Instead, this seems to stem from your rash decision-making and unwillingness to do research of answers in discussion. Here, I am going to teach how to do administrative things properly before requesting your waivers from that advice. This teaching also involves gaining PCR rights, which many of my colleagues in WPTC have now.

Lastly, you know that you are a former rollbacker and page mover. This seems to also stem from the same problem as above, which is rash decision-making. When we come to this, it is after I requested your waivers on administrative areas. By that time, I will try to guide you in an attempt to get these user rights back. Getting rollbacker and page mover back will be the last thing you are going to do before you graduate. In the quest of getting rollback, it will involve Counter-Vandalism Unit Academy, which I, as of this writing, have not graduated yet but progressing through. In the quest of getting page mover, you will go through intricacies of moving guidelines in Wikipedia as well as requested moves. I will assist you on that one while giving you a drill here.

I forgot to note that you can join New Page Patrol School at anytime, preferably earlier (and I recommend you joining it). This is due to the fact that you are facing some trouble in your AfC reviewing. Most people in AfC area, especially who has a COI, are quite intimidating people (you can take a look at User talk:SiberMusic, which is now globally locked). If you aren't prepared, I suggest that you had to go through NPPS first. You seems to have a good skill there. Once you graduate from NPPS, you may want to apply for a new page reviewer, which I has been one from December 2020 to January 2021.

Now, it looks like that the road to for way back is rocky and hard to reach. No worries, I have you by my side. Don't be afraid getting your answers wrong, there is no "points" that you need to graduate. I will try to get the best of your ability to become a great Wikipedian in the future, especially by 2030 when you are at my age right I am now. Remember that Red Phoenix had their RfA rejected in early 2008, only to do it again in 2020 with rousing success.

That's the introduction. Now, I will do the first thing to do, which is to teach you some lesson about creating good articles. Mario Jump 83! 09:03, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Creating good articles/article reviewing

What I am talking about here is not Owen, which, by all purposes, will be a GA when all the concerns are fully quelled alongside getting that PR done. To be frank, GA work is not a walk in the park, it takes a lot of a hard work. I mean, Cyclone Ava, which was nearly abandoned before I took over, is pretty troublesome to complete. Thus, in here I'm trying to get you to understand how much the work is needed to get that done, which also involves adequate research. I don't think that a confrontational user like Jason Rees would help you in this regard - I have to confront him in Owen PR because there is a possible chance that he won't give any chances for the future of you, which is a classic WP:HOUNDING. I have no ill will or bad intention towards Jason, as he has good intentions, but it's basically to get him to stop arguing about Cyclone Owen GA-or-bust and give a chance for Cyclone Owen PR to run. I will not going to confront you like Jason Rees did to you, but I want to help you learn. This is about other articles you have created, for example Cyclone Herold or Cyclone Harold. Assuming that you want to get Herold/Harold GA next (I don't mean that Herold or Harold will become GA, but what would happen eventually in the future if you plan to prepare it for nomination), I am going to ask you some questions. You can take some of your experience from Cyclone Owen to these articles.

Question 1. How do you prepare your article before GAN?

Answer 1: To prepare your article for GAN, you improve it as much as you can. Then, you check the good article criteria and make sure it fits with the rest of the article. If it does not fit, then you improve it more. Then you nominate. 🐔 Chicdat ^{Bawk to me!} 12:03, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Y, this is clearly right. You'll need to hoard everything you need before GAN. Otherwise, it is going to be instantly failed. Mario Jump 83! 05:25, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Question 2. Once you have prepared your article for GAN, how do you prepare yourself for reviewer responses?

Answer 2: Patiently wait for responses from a reviewer. Often, the GAN backlog is huge, and it takes a couple of months to get a response. Try to improve it during this period as well. (I didn't, and I was told that the article was very far from becoming a GA.) Expect responses about things that you didn't know were problems, as well as things that you didn't completely bring up to standards.

Y. Mario Jump 83! 11:46, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Question 3. Assuming the reviewer suggests rewriting, how do you do to an article?

Answer 3: To rewrite, you remove everything that doesn't fit with the good article criteria, and replace it with well-sourced, well-written, content that does. 🐔 Chicdat ^{Bawk to me!} 11:40, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Y. This is what you should do.
Question 4. The reviewer says that an information presented in the article is not the same as was presented in the source, or WP:OR. What you are going to do with this?

Answer 4: If the material in the source(s) is different than what is in the article, then carefully read the source(s) again. Try to integrate the text into the article. UNDER NO CIRCUMSTANCES should you copy the source into the article, change a few words, or use other methods of violating copyright. If the material is WP:OR, then remove it, and replace it with similar, but sourced, material. 🐔 Chicdat ^{Bawk to me!} 13:33, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

. Yeah. You need to do that. Mario Jump 83! 11:46, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Chicdat I apologize for not giving questions for eleven days - I was busy with my college. Mario Jump 83! 11:15, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I can't blame you for that. 🐔 Chicdat ^{Bawk to me!} 11:16, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, once you pass this, I'll let you back to AfC reviewing. By the way, "creating good articles" is all about testing you regarding how you will use sources and read sources, which ultimately can help you for future AfC, GA (probably even FA), and New Page reviewing. There are reasons why some don't like your AfC reviewing. This is what you need to get yourself out of trouble. Mario Jump 83! 13:12, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There are more questions from 5 to 10. The fifth and the sixth are the remaining questions about creating GAs - the fifth will be about a very specific question by a reviewer and the sixth will be about a source that you will have to input in a text. The seventh and the eighth are questions about in-depth GA reviewing about an article that does not pass the quick fail criteria. The ninth will be about a FAR and the tenth will be about your AfC reviewing using the drafts that are not reviewed in two months. This is quite a lot, but my hope is that you'll gain a lot of experience from this. Mario Jump 83! 12:49, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Alright. I'm ready for this. 🐔 Chicdat ^{Bawk to me!} 11:26, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Question 5. This is an example of a specific question made by a reviewer in Talk:Effects_of_Hurricane_Dorian_in_the_Carolinas/GA1#Section_Two Could you give a short explanation of what rainbands are (in text) for the non-meteorology folks? Please do not edit the article, but you can explain about rainbands in here. This is for the North Carolina section of the article, and where you will put it into?

Answer 5: Rainbands are cloud structures in thunderstorms. They often form in tropical cyclones. (simplified from Rainband article) 🐔 Chicdat ^{Bawk to me!} 12:43, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thus I assume that you will put in "cloud structures in thunderstorms" while not giving where you will have to put it on. While I can give you a yellow tick, this still sounds meteorological. Mario Jump 83! 13:08, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

New Answer 5: Rainbands are cloud structures in thunderstorms, which often form in tropical cyclones. I would put it in the North Carolina section, where it says coastal sections of South Carolina, noting that tornadoes would be possible within arcing rainbands shortly before reference 96. Now, is this correct? 🐔 Chicdat ^{Bawk to me!} 11:03, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Y Yes, that's good! However, this still sounds meteorological in my opinion, so this is as far I can go. The answer for this is Rainbands are outer parts of the cyclone, and will be put in what you have said. Mario Jump 83! 00:08, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Question 6. https://www.islandpacket.com/news/weather-news/article234681057.html - this is a source that you will have to add to the text. Write your sentence from your own words, then tell me where you will put it in on the article. Please note that this source had been already added to the article, so you'll had to guess where from this revision. By the way, you had to give your answers here, and do not edit the article.

Answer 6: Can't do (so sorry). 🐔 Chicdat ^{Bawk to me!} 11:57, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Well, this is the problem you have faced all along when you build up your Cyclone Owen GA. I will be always involved in your GA efforts at this point on to prevent this from happening again. Mario Jump 83! 07:57, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@MarioJump83: It's not my fault I can't do this! (I couldn't disable the adblocker because I don't have much control over the device I use to edit Wikipedia.) 🐔 Chicdat ^{Bawk to me!} 13:17, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. Mario Jump 83! 13:46, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

More later. Mario Jump 83! 13:08, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand the questions very well. Can you please clarify. 🐔 Chicdat ^{Bawk to me!} 12:33, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Chicdat Q5 is a suggestion by a reviewer that you have to do when you imagine that you are improving Effects of Hurricane Dorian in the Carolinas. Q6 involves a source that you have to add into the article. I give you some hints, if you have any trouble with this, I am going to answer it by myself. Mario Jump 83! 12:39, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Chicdat I am going to do a wikibreak for an indeterminate amount of time (June 1 is the earliest I can think of, but I may come back later than that.) You may continue answering these questions while I am away. I will check this page for time to time however, and will give either ticks or crosses. Mario Jump 83! 00:08, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Question 7. I give you an example of an article that is not nominated yet, but it is a GAN candidate. What I mean by this is Cyclone Sarai. Since Sarai is not going to be a quickfail candidate, how do you do an in-depth GA review of Cyclone Sarai? What is your suggestions you can give to me for Sarai? Give at least three example of these suggestions.

Answer 7: The preparations section, especially for Tonga, is rather short, and it should be longer. The lead has only three sentences about the impact and could also be lengthened. There are some grammar issues that follow you around wherever you go, like putting commas in the wrong, places, that you should fix.

Good! To know more about this, you will have to read Wikipedia:Good article criteria. (there are templates you'll need to use during the review) Mario Jump 83! 10:36, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Question 8. I have completed all of your suggestions, without interference from outside reviewers until that time. Once I completed all of your suggestions however, an outside reviewer (outside of WPTC) gives a second opinion. What you have to do here? Passing the article? Or give an outside reviewer a chance to fix the mistakes?

Answer 8: It depends. If the outside reviewer had few concerns and they were easily fixed, then I would pass it. If the outside reviewer had a moderate number of concerns and you/the reviewer were in the process of fixing them, I would place it on hold or keep it going. If the outside reviewer had many concerns and nobody was fixing them, I would fail it. 🐔 Chicdat ^{Bawk to me!} 10:24, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This is what Hurricane Noah did in Effects of Hurricane Dorian in the Carolinas GAR. I'm actually ready to fail it by that time as Cyclone Toby did not do anything during this month, so I agree with Hurricane Noah. Mario Jump 83! 10:36, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Question 9. How will you do an in-depth (not quick) Featured Article review? What is the criteria for your oppose and your support?

Answer 9: I will change "oppose" and "support" to "keep" and "delist" here. Now, I would start by extensively reviewing the criteria for an FA, and carefully review the article. If it fit the guidelines perfectly, then I would immediately !vote keep. If there were problems but they were being fixed and they were not severe, I would !vote a weaker keep. If the article no longer complied with the criteria, the problems were not being fixed, and/or if the writing style was quite different from that of a similar featured article, I would !vote to delist. (Please note though, that I do not intend to get myself very involved in FAR.) 🐔 Chicdat ^{Bawk to me!} 10:50, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This is the right thing to do. Mario Jump 83! 07:57, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Question 10. Please review about three articles that are pending review for about 3 months on the AfC using diffs (these things are done using Yet Another AfC helper script). Remember to read Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Reviewing instructions when you're doing this.

Comment 10: So, using nothing but diffs, I should review 700 AfC drafts. What does "using diffs" mean anyway?

Here's what I mean by this: accepting draft, declining draft. You have to go back reviewing the AfC drafts again to answer Q10. Mario Jump 83! 10:36, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Answer 10: First diff [1] Second [2] Third diff [3]

First: This is the right reason, as the sources are obviously primary.

Mario Jump 83! 00:34, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Second: Some sources are not independent and are primary sources, which is why I won't review this draft. You did the right thing here however, as no one put it back into the draftspace again.

Mario Jump 83! 07:57, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Third: Of course I would decline it for improper sourcing.

Mario Jump 83! 02:46, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for making hard questions for you to answer. Mario Jump 83! 12:39, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, once you finish this, I am moving to the next phase of the course. If you want to continue studying how to review properly, I recommend participation in WP:NPPS. Mario Jump 83! 00:11, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Chicdat - You're free to do AfC reviewing again! Mario Jump 83! 07:57, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, your score is 10/12. Mario Jump 83! 13:46, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry to say, that the Draft:Itamar Medical and Deniz Unay things have really taken away my interest in AfC. So you won't be seeing me reviewing any drafts anytime soon. I'm about to disable AFCH and will ask on the WP:AFC talk page if I can have my AfC access removed. One day I might review drafts again, but not now. Now I hope that you can help me get my rollback and page mover rights back. 🐔 Chicdat ^{Bawk to me!} 11:25, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Creating good articles/article reviewing

Administrative involvement