Ovinus
Tips for reviewing GA
@Ovinus Hello. I've seen you have much more experience in reviewing GA Mathematics articles. I am still new, and I have no idea what to do. Any tips? Honestly, I don't mean to request a second opinion in Talk:Triaugmented triangular prism/GA1, but I would like to question for tips just in case. Dedhert.Jr (talk) 11:35, 26 November 2022 (UTC)
- @Dedhert.Jr: Hey! First of all, don't sweat it; it's just an article review. You can always ask for a second opinion, and David's articles are usually excellent, so there's little risk of rubber stamping something problematic. I think the way I review depends on the article. For something like Triaugmented triangular prism, where in principle some of the material should be accessible to a high schooler, my main focus is accessibility. Obviously, you can't make everything super simple. But if there's something that you understand that could be said clearer, note that.
- Writing Wikipedia math articles is very hard; most general encyclopedias shy away from any equation involving more than a dozen symbols, while many specialist encyclopedias throw accessibility to the wind (c.f. Encyclopedia of Mathematics). Reviewing them is similarly tricky, especially if you're missing a lot of background—that's often me.
- You can also consider images. For example, one image that comes to mind which would enliven that article would be a picture of that decomposition of the shape into a prism and three pyramids; that can be tricky to visualize. If I could remember how to use Blender I'd make one myself.... You can drive-by comment on existing GANs—for example, Unit distance graph. And of course, next time you can always try easier articles, especially ones which are in topics you are already familiar with. That's why the sorting GANs by topic exists.
- Happy editing! Ovinus (talk) 18:53, 26 November 2022 (UTC)
- @Ovinus Thanks for the tips. However, I am not 100% sure can understand lots of technical, since I can only and try to understand it. Isn't that my mistake while reviewing? Beside, what do you mean accessability here? And how is it related to high schooler? Dedhert.Jr (talk) 22:16, 26 November 2022 (UTC)
- If you feel you can't give a complete review, you can mark it for a second opinion. Ovinus (talk) 23:48, 26 November 2022 (UTC)
- Thank you. Am I still allowed to ask during the second opinion? Dedhert.Jr (talk) 23:59, 26 November 2022 (UTC)
- You can comment as you please, of course. (By "accessibility" I mean "readability": Can a high school senior who likes math understand what's going on? If not, can the material be explained in reasonable space, at that level? Or is it simply too recondite?) Ovinus (talk) 03:55, 27 November 2022 (UTC)
- As a reviewer like you, does a reviewer have to be expert in any mathematical fields before reviewing? I can only tell that I am actually not expert in it. Dedhert.Jr (talk) 11:42, 27 November 2022 (UTC)
- No, I'm not an expert in any (sub)field. Ovinus (talk) 18:01, 27 November 2022 (UTC)
- Okay, thanks a lot. I have request the second opinion in Talk:Triaugmented triangular prism/GA1. I will put secnod opinion in talk page as well. Dedhert.Jr (talk) 23:50, 27 November 2022 (UTC)
- No, I'm not an expert in any (sub)field. Ovinus (talk) 18:01, 27 November 2022 (UTC)
- As a reviewer like you, does a reviewer have to be expert in any mathematical fields before reviewing? I can only tell that I am actually not expert in it. Dedhert.Jr (talk) 11:42, 27 November 2022 (UTC)
- You can comment as you please, of course. (By "accessibility" I mean "readability": Can a high school senior who likes math understand what's going on? If not, can the material be explained in reasonable space, at that level? Or is it simply too recondite?) Ovinus (talk) 03:55, 27 November 2022 (UTC)
- Thank you. Am I still allowed to ask during the second opinion? Dedhert.Jr (talk) 23:59, 26 November 2022 (UTC)
- If you feel you can't give a complete review, you can mark it for a second opinion. Ovinus (talk) 23:48, 26 November 2022 (UTC)
- @Ovinus Thanks for the tips. However, I am not 100% sure can understand lots of technical, since I can only and try to understand it. Isn't that my mistake while reviewing? Beside, what do you mean accessability here? And how is it related to high schooler? Dedhert.Jr (talk) 22:16, 26 November 2022 (UTC)
ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message
Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:45, 29 November 2022 (UTC)
Retired Editor Question
Hi. My name is Amber and I work for Yelp. I disclosed a conflict of interest and proposed a few changes at Talk:Yelp#Requested_Updates. I was hoping you might be willing to take a look. It appears as though in prior years Yelp collaborated with @Protonk:, who did the GA review of a prior version of the page. However, Protonk appears to have retired a few months back. Alalbrech (talk) 18:08, 6 December 2022 (UTC)
A barnstar for you!
| The Tireless Contributor Barnstar | |
| Thanks for handling like 24 requests over at Talk:Legality of child pornography! I'll try to handle the section-ing for now, thanks! Aaron Liu (talk) 12:23, 9 December 2022 (UTC) |
- Also, you might want to put the checks and crosses in your reply, aka using {{subst:ESp}} instead of the original bold mishmash. Additionally, the {{tqi}} template is a better way to quote other editors IMO. Aaron Liu (talk) 12:25, 9 December 2022 (UTC)