Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 20:19, 5 January 2015

This is a project sandbox of Misplaced Pages Signpost. A project sandbox is a subpage of the project's project page. It serves as a testing spot and page development space for the project and is not an encyclopedia article. For a sandbox of your own, create a project subpage. This project's sandboxes: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 Other sandboxes: Main sandbox | Tutorial sandbox 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 | Template sandbox

Please add your response below each question and feel free to skip any questions that you don't feel comfortable answering. Multiple editors will have an opportunity to respond to the interview questions, so be sure to sign each answer. If you know anyone else who would like to participate in the interview, please share this with them.

Question 1

One of the perennial problems with Articles for Creation has been the large backlog of unreviewed submissions, currently at around 2,500 ("severe"). How long does the average submission wait before being reviewed, and how many participants actively review submissions to keep on top of the backlog?

• I don't know exactly, but if I had to guess I'd say a few weeks, it depends on the subject too. BLPs and companies take the longest, I would say, things like animals and plants, stuff like that, don't usually take that long, because the notability of the subject is easy to verify. --AmaryllisGardener 21:04, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
• It depends on the complexity of the article. In too many cases, the submitter hasn't paid any attention to the rules of Misplaced Pages, those are easy to see and eliminate. A good article that is properly done takes longer to validate. A couple weeks is pretty accurate.The Ukulele Dude - Aggie80 (talk) 21:50, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
• The Very Old (4weeks+) category has over 500 pages in it. I've recently taken to using the "random draft in this category" option from there and I'd guess the average along with newer ones is about 6 weeks. And I'd guess about 50 active participants. E _C K _S A E _S  22:40, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
• It really depends on the effort put into the article. Simple ones that would be quickly CSDed if they had been created in mainspace are easily dealt with. Ones that are on the edge of being acceptable for mainspace take more time as the Reviewer's reputation is on the line if it gets put up for AfD. Hasteur (talk) 00:52, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
• That really depends on the individual submission. Some are easily determined to be not-notable or otherwise unsuitable, and some reviewers prefer to try and filter these types of submission and get them out the pending reviews queue. Others require a more in depth examination and reviews may have to do a significant amount of clean up work themselves to make sense of a submission, or make it policy compliant. The length of time submissions wait around for review is directly proportional to the number of submissions awaiting review. Some submissions can sit around for months, but on average I would say one to two weeks based on the current backlogs. Reviewers are encouraged to review the oldest submission first. Bellerophon _{talk to me} 08:44, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
• It depends on the context. A submission that would normally be speedy deleted if in mainspace can be handled within 24 hours. I tend to review from the back of the queue, which tends to be 1-2 months. Sometimes, and indeed with increasing regularity, the time lag is so long, that by the time I review the submission, another editor has created it anyway. Ritchie333 09:59, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
• It really depends on the article – some are obvious fails/passes but more complex or lengthy articles may 'languish' because (in my personal opinion) everyone looks at them and gulps. I've seen submissions that are a month or more old and haven't been touched. Active reviewers – couldn't hazard a guess as this varies – do their best, but it's tempting to skip an article, especially if it's in a specialist field or would require an hour or more to check properly. Libby norman (talk) 11:30, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
• As the other editors have rightly said, it depends on the article, although I would disagree that it depends on the length. Some very lengthy submissions are well cited, and very easy to pass. Others I have seen have virtually no citations, and are easily declined due to lack of meeting the Misplaced Pages criteria. I can't speak for other editors, but I know that articles can sit due to a lack of familiarity with the subject matter, or lack of expertise (e.g. articles on technical subjects like physics or medicine). These can take an inordinate amount of time simply familiarizing oneself with the subject matter. Personally, I focus on the "very old submissions", and try to approve/decline 10-15 a day. Every few days I'll spend a bit more time on the list, and try to "pick off the low-hanging fruit", by going through a few dozen articles and checking for obvious reasons for declining, like no references, or COPYVIO issues. Onel5969 (talk) 16:28, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
• Yes, it varies a lot. I personally preferred to tackle the older, more difficult submissions while others prefer the 'quick wins'. Both strategies are equally valuable, I'm sure! Will be interesting to know whether someone keeps stats. Sionk (talk) 18:41, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

• Currently, far longer than it should. It does depend on the article though. Many are addressed in a reasonable time period, while some take longer before they are reviewed. A number appear to fall through the cracks (so to speak) and seemingly are overlooked, remaining unreviewed for an inexcusabley long period time. It has proved difficult for Misplaced Pages's limited number of volunteers to keep up with the demand for reviews.SecretName101 (talk) 18:56, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
• On the main page of the WikiProject, it says, "Following huge backlogs on the page, Kwsn and others started WikiProject Articles for creation on 2 June 2007.” So, obviously, the backlog is integral to our mission. We have a fairly solid core community made up of experienced Wikipedians whose main or major goal is to review articles. However, it’s been quite some time since anyone was “on top of” the backlog. On the submission box on every article up for review, it says that the reviewing process "may take several weeks, to over a month,” and, indeed, we have a large amount of articles that are older than a month and are still awaiting review. theonesean 18:59, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
• The oldest remaining drafts are in Category:AfC submissions by date/01 August 2014, so I'd say they wait 5 months at the longest. I don't pay an awful lot of attention though, since I don't really review anything (I've accepted maybe 4 articles so far--hoping to try and change that, however). ekips39 20:06, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Question 2

How do you think the backlog could be significantly reduced? In the past, backlog drives have been held to push the numbers down - are these successful or do they present too many problems, such as sloppy and rushed reviewing?

• I think that backlog drives are pretty good, and that we should have more of them. I think the best thing would be to try to get more experienced editors involved in reviewing AfC submissions. --AmaryllisGardener 21:04, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
• Some gates 'up front' to get through before submission. Blank and nonsense submissions could be filtered out by macros or bots. Force anyone with fewer than a few dozen actions to go through the wizard and not allow them to bypass it.The Ukulele Dude - Aggie80 (talk) 21:50, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
• I have not participated in backlog drives, but this does not seem like a reasonable solution. I agree with Aggie about upfront gates before submission. It would help to have some automatic way to ensure new editors have taken minimal steps towards an acceptable draft. Right now it's too easy to create garbage and submit it for review. Backlog drives by their nature encourage sloppy/rushed reviews. E _C K _S A E _S  22:40, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
• Frankly we need more volunteers to review drafts. I believe that we get around 200 drafts in for review every day. And as referenced below we're on a trend of about 50 more drafts in than out so we're consistently losing ground. Add to this are the CSD:G13 restores where it takes nothing more than a few clicks to get a abandoned draft back and put back into our review queue without any substantial effort to improve beyond the previous decline (or that the draft was never put in for review). As a veteran of multiple backlog drives we suffer a significant problem of gamification where you are rewarded one point for every draft that you review (either as an accept or decline). If you review hordes of submissions you can bury the quality check reviewers (who look at the reviews to determine if the review was correct) and win one of the top 3 prizes as long as your reviews are correct for the most part. There is a significant incentive to do sloppy reviews to get the points and move on during the backlog drive,, Ergo this is why I've opposed doing backlog drives under the current regieme as it does not solve the underlying exploting problem. Hasteur (talk) 01:00, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
• More bodies. We could always send Jimbo Wales around to ask Chzz to come back--it was the zeal by people like him that made this thing work in the first place. Drmies (talk) 01:49, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
• I'm with Drmies and Hasteur on this one. Reward-driven backlog drives are just asking for sloppy rewiewing. What we need, just as we desperately do at WP:NPP, is a greater number of more competent rewiewers. I see recently that some users are literally hovering over their edit count to get their name on the AfC reviewer list, and like NPP and many other maintenance places, it's the wrong reason as a newbie, to join Misplaced Pages. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:03, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
• The current backlog drives are somewhat successful in reducing the backlogs and experienced reviewers do carry out checks on the quality of reviewing, but this is a short-term fix. What's really needed is a significant increase in the number of active reviewers, and we need reviewers with the right kind of experience on Misplaced Pages. Editors with experience at Articles for Deletion would be good candidates, as a solid grasp of the notability guidelines is pretty essential. The entire community needs to take some responsibility for Articles for Creation, along with the New Pages Feed, it is one of the only methods Misplaced Pages has for quality assuring new articles and helping new editors. Bellerophon _{talk to me} 08:54, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
• Like others, I am dead against backlog drives as we used to do them as they encourage low-quality reviews that cause more harm than good (see Arctic Kangaroo (talk · contribs)). I have proposed the idea of an "AFC Cup" which would reward passed reviews, with increasing points for reviewing older submissions, but it would require a considerable amount of maintenance to run. To be honest, I think we need to think of something completely different, and one solution is to allow more co-operation between NPP and draft space. Instead of NPPers CSDing or AfDing articles, they could be moved to draft space where the creator can work on them. Conversely, if a submission sits unreviewed for say 90 days, it is deemed "no consensus to reject" and automatically moved to mainspace. That sounds radical, but it's no different to a new article that remains unpatrolled for 30 days and drops off the end of the queue (which admittedly is rare). AfC as we know it now would cease to exist, and become an auxillary function of NPP. I think that's quite possibly the answer. Ritchie333 09:59, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

I like that idea of making AFC a function of NPP, userfy would be a great option to have in some cases rather than CSD/AFD. Vrac (talk) 20:14, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

• I think it would help if the backlog was more clearly divided up into unreviewed and reviewed and failed, then at least people could target the list more logically and wouldn't be so disheartened every time they looked at the backlog. Currently it feels like the more you do the larger the pile grows and that's because, unfortunately, there are some boomerang articles that are resubmitted repeatedly – either the editor doesn't understand the comments made or doesn't know how to make the required improvements. These repeat fails also clog up the system. In an ideal world, there would be further intervention to assist the editor to make the article work, although I'm pretty certain all regular reviewers have come across the 'hopeless case'. I think backlog drives are quite useful, although they present potential problems if people focus too much on the prize. They are just one tool though and I think more could be done to incentivise reviewers to tackle the boomerangs that might be salvageable but need more targeted intervention. Libby norman (talk) 11:30, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
• Not in favor of backlog drives, for all of the reasons stated above. Aggie's point is a good one, especially if we could have a bot that looks for COPYVIO or no references. I also like Libby's suggestion of dividing the list into new submissions, versus resubmitted versions of failed submissions. Sometimes it's difficult, since so many folks who submit articles don't put effort into their articles, they don't make an effort to bring it up to even the most rudimentary wiki standards. I think the breakout of re-submitted articles would help significantly. I find that those who submit articles, and honestly want to do it correctly, contact me and try to work to get the article in shape for the mainspace. When they do, I make every effort to work with them (not doing it myself, except for perhaps making an edit as an example), to help them get it ready. The only time this doesn't work is if the subject is simply not notable (like a beloved local HS football coach). But, as the other editors have pointed out, we need more bodies.
• I think reviewers often raise the bar too high, though I can understand why. The purpose of AfC should be to weed out the clear and blatant failures. We should simply ask ourselves "If I saw this article in mainspace would I immediately speedy delete it or nominate for AfD?" If the answer is "No" we should accept it and leave to others to clean-up/scrutinise more deeply etc. Unfortunately I didn't get any satisfaction from letting articles through that were borderline, or probably gaming the system. But to clear things more quickly we should not do such a thorough job (just a minimal one), I'm afraid. Sionk (talk) 18:41, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
• Staying on top of the backlog is an extremely relative term, and truly the only thing that could reduce our backlog is more experienced and knowledgable reviewers devoting more of their time to reviewing. Backlog drives seems like a good idea, but they are a keen double-edged sword; many newer reviewers who have great potential end up valuing quantity over quality, and pumping out as many reviews as possible. This, obviously, makes waves that other reviews have to deal with.

The WikiProject desperately needs new people to help review, but backlog drives can take eager, inexperienced reviewers and misguide their energies into gaining points rather than experience. theonesean 18:59, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Question 3

How many submissions does the project receive in an average day, and has this figure changed since the last interview? Are most submissions accepted or declined? What are some ways an unregistered user can improve an article's chance of being accepted?

• I don't how many exactly, but I would guess around 150. That's a lot of work for the reviewers like me. Most submissions are declined, the new users don't know how to write content that follows policy, the most common problem in drafts is notability and referencing, as simple as that. Some advice I would give to the users submitting the drafts would be, take things slow, and don't submit it until you're ready, and to get a better understandings of the policies, especially policies on citing sources and notability. Some new users take it the wrong way when you tell them "X isn't notable", thinking it's a personal thing. --AmaryllisGardener 21:04, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
• A couple hundred submissions a day. About 25% are probably re-submissions after something has been reviewed. About half don't come close to meeting the basic requirements and another 25% are being submitted for advertising or self promotion. That leaves about 50 with a legitimate subject and some attempt to meet the requirements. (These are seat of the pants estimates and not based on actual numbers.)The Ukulele Dude - Aggie80 (talk) 21:50, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
• The numbers vary quite a bit, but according to Category:AfC_pending_submissions_by_age The number still waiting by day are: 1d 37, 2d 19, 3d 34, 4d 58, 6d 12, 7d 14, 8d 2, 9d 7, 10d 33, 11d 61, 12d 60, 13d 28, 14d 24, 15d 65, 16d 72. These seem to reflect a drop because of the holidays. But remembering from before December, as Amaryllis said above, 150 seems about right for an average. Most submissions are declined, many each day are resubmitted. Unregistered users can improve their chances by taking advantage of all the resources available for new people and drafting. It's all there for them, too many simply don't want to read instructions. With the number of autobiographies and promotional drafts submitted, it would help to make it clearer requirements for notability and references. E _C K _S A E _S  22:40, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
• I would like to see see some sort of line in the "create a new page" that says something to the effect of "Many drafts that are submitted early in an editor's tenure at Misplaced Pages are not compliant with policy. Please familiarize yourself with what a good article looks like so you have a better chance at getting your article accepted". I know it's pie in the sky, but it would be nice to remove many of the "Johnny Doe is the best-est bass player in the whole world and has the most kickass garage band in the universe." type of submissions. Hasteur (talk) 01:09, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
• The number has fluctuated over the years, I would say on average AfC receives between 100 and 200 new drafts per day; it has been known for it be much higher. When you correlate this with the relatively small number of active reviewers and the amount of additional work most submissions need, it's easy to see why the backlog builds up so fast. The majority of submissions are declined on first review, because AfC is almost exclusively used by new editors who are not really familiar with what Misplaced Pages is all about. We see a great many submissions that are simply not suitable for an encyclopaedia. However, many submissions are improved after initially being declined and go on to become acceptable articles. We do have a problem with submissions that are repeatedly declined, and we probably need to work on how we communicate problems to new editors and how we deal with those who disrupt the process. This has been a work in progress for several years. Bellerophon _{talk to me} 09:14, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
• I have no idea, but I'm prepared to believe the above figures. Ritchie333 09:59, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
• Most submissions are declined, and it isn't even close. This is because writing an encyclopedic article isn't an easy thing to accomplish, and AfC of course is a submission portal for new wikipedians. Even articles on historical figures or geographic locations may take several submissions before it is accepted, so that the article is verifiable and readable. A very high percentage of the submissions are designed for product visibility, and even if the subject is notable, weeding out promotional language is usually a prolonged process. To improve the chances of being accepted, if the submitter would take the time to understand WP:Notability and WP:REFB we would have a much better "accept" rate. However, these are not easy policies to understand, and I'm very glad that users whose articles are declined are sent to the teahouse. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 16:01, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
• I'll address the last point, since the others have been very well answered above. While the resources are there for new editors, many don't know about them, nor even where or how to look for them. Some things are easy fixes, and you can point a new editor to the right guide, e.g. WP:BIO, WP:CITE, WP:CIT or MOS:LAYOUT. I find those four help in the vast majority of circumstances. I don't know how to fix the problem, but when a new editor wants to create an article, they should be required to look at and acknowledge that they've read certain guidelines before creating an article. Onel5969 (talk) 16:27, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
• Let's just say, a lot are recieved on a regular basis, some are of quite good quality, but a good number are not suitable to be approved.SecretName101 (talk)
• Most submissions are not ready for mainspace, and some take two, three, or four iterations before they are ready. Obviously, most are denied the first time. However, most users can take some simple steps, like making sure the subject of the article is indeed notable, using inline citations to support claims, and making sure that the writing is clear and concise. Reading the Misplaced Pages guidelines for notability and generally being familiar with how Misplaced Pages works will work wonders in making your article mainspace-ready. theonesean 18:59, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Question 4

Do many accepted submissions go on to further improvement after being approved, such as appearing on DYK, being expanded, or even become recognised content?

• Absolutely. Some submissions start out at C-class. And as you can see here, two articles that were once drafts are now FAs, 28 are GAs, and 765 are B-class. I don't know about DYK though. --AmaryllisGardener 21:04, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
• You bet! People are encouraged to tighten up and add to an article that has been accepted. Often they will shepherd it, coming back to review and monitor it, as well as update as new information is received.The Ukulele Dude - Aggie80 (talk) 21:50, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
• One of DYK's suggestions is to look through recently promoted AFC submissions for potential DYK nominations. One of my best acceptances was F. O. Oertel which I also nominated for DYK (which subsequently passed). Hasteur (talk) 01:09, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
• I have successfully nominated several for DYK. The new rules at DYK mean that a nominator has to complete a QPQ review which may deter people from making such nominations in the future. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:50, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
• If an AfC submission piques my interest, I will do what I can to improve it, sometimes to DYK (eg: The Minories, Colchester). I passed 2013 meat adulteration scandal through AfC and has seen great interest from a wide variety of editors. One AfC submission, (Haim (band)) is sitting at WP:GAN as I write this. Very occasionally an AfC submission gets AfDed, and I will improve the article to ensure its survival (eg: Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Direct Ferries). Experiences like this, though, are very much in the minority. Ritchie333 09:59, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
• There are many articles I'm pleased I put through, such as North End, Detroit, Scarlet Road, All Saints' Cathedral, Cairo and Design School Kolding. I tend not to ask myself whether this is a potential star, but whether it's an article that adds to Misplaced Pages/meets criteria to be on Misplaced Pages. Having also checked out the articles that arrive via other routes, I would say that standards on articles that arrive on mainspace through AfC are quite often higher because reviewing editors take pains to put the basics in place. And provided articles are noteworthy and reasonably well constructed and sourced, they always have the potential to go further. Libby norman (talk) 11:30, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
• Yes. Either by the creator of the article, or myself, if I find the article of interest, or other editors. The articles which go on to GA, FA or DYK have been spoken of above. Onel5969 (talk) 16:27, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
• There are occasionally reasonable and interesting submissions, but once an author has developed a level of proficiency to write a good article that will stand up at DYK, they will probably no longer need to use AfC. Sionk (talk) 18:41, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
• The process of article review is a collaboration between reviewers and authors. If an author works to make their article ready for mainspace, it’s much more likely that they will continue to tweak and expand their article once it’s on Misplaced Pages at large. So far, we have a long list of featured articles, good articles, and otherwise recognised content. theonesean 18:59, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Question 5

Can you remember the best submission you've ever reviewed? Was it well-sourced, well-illustrated, skillfully and engagingly written?

• Flavobacterium psychrophilum was the best draft I ever reviewed. It's well-sourced and well-written overall (for a draft), it was started by an IP editor. --AmaryllisGardener 21:04, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
• Sadly no. Most of the submissions are quick fails. And out of the ones I remember accepting, most seem to just squeak by in terms of minimally meeting criteria for acceptance. E _C K _S A E _S  22:40, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
• Mites of livestock had been worked on for months and was C class by the time it was accepted. I successfully nominated it for DYK and the creator has continued to work on it since then. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:50, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
• There are AfC submissions I've enjoyed working on (see those above), but as a rule of thumb, anyone who knows how to write a good article out of the box doesn't need AfC. Every submission that's been promoted above and beyond the basic sub or start-class acceptance has required extensive copyediting and finding more or better sources. I'm not sure I have ever assessed a submission at even C-class, unless I've worked on it myself. Ritchie333 09:59, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
• The best submission I reviewed happened to be on a subject matter I am familiar with, and was written by a new editor who obviously understood the subject and already cared about wikipedia's goals. The submitter and I have since struck up a friendship, making this indeed a most rewarding experience. I have assessed a couple of articles at B-class, but I've a feeling these were not by a new editor. I suspect WP:CLEANSTART in these instances. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 16:16, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
• My first ever submissions to DYK were ones I came across at AfC. My favorite was the fascinating Great Polish Map of Scotland! Sionk (talk) 18:41, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Question 6

How can a new member help today?

• A new member can help today by reviewing the submissions, of course. They should take it slow, and if they're not sure, skip it. --AmaryllisGardener 21:04, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
• Aside from reviewing, the best thing a new member could do is to recruit more reviewers. E _C K _S A E _S  22:40, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
• Any editor who has experience with editing and handling multiple mainspace articles is welcome to come assist. We ask that new reviewers follow the reviewing ruberic that has evolved as best practices for handling AFC submissions. We don't throw the entire book of CSD or Mainspace policy at the advocate for the draft, but encourage the advocate to continue improving the draft to the point that it has at least a 50% chance of passing a AfD nomination. Hasteur (talk) 01:16, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
• New members are very welcome indeed. Aside from accurately reviewing articles, editors who are great at problem solving or have technical skills, such as programming and coding could help in continuing to improve and maintain the various templates and scripts we use in the reviewing process. AfC also covers Redirects and Categories for creations and Files for upload, so any editors experienced in those areas are particularly welcome. Bellerophon _{talk to me} 09:15, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
• Review the "very old submissions", particularly ones that you think should pass. Identify cases at CSD and AfD where "move to draft" is an acceptable option. Promote the idea that a submission can be moved from draft to mainspace, and even back to draft. Ritchie333 09:59, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
• Adopt an article that you think deserves to be on Misplaced Pages but needs a helping hand and get it through to mainspace. It is a very satisfying feeling. Libby norman (talk) 11:30, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
• New wikipedia members shouldn't be reviewing, but they can make improvements to the pending articles, as no one owns AfC drafts any more than a mainspace article. If you are a new AfC member, try to find articles in an area you have some knowledge and expertise in. It will make your reviewing much easier if you know what is and is not a reliable source for the given field. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 16:24, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
• A 'new (i.e. inexperienced) user really cannot help all that much, asI de from developing their drafts thoroughly before they submit them. A user that is more aquanted can contribute by helping edit submissions needing impeovements, and by volunteering as a AfC reviewer. Familiarize yourself with Misplaced Pages before taking on responsibilities such as AfC reviewing.SecretName101 (talk) 18:56, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
• I’d urge any new member to hang around the talk page of the WikiProject and familiarize themselves with the community before reviewing. Perhaps they could see how other, more experienced reviewers review certain articles, before trying one on their own. Also, there is no shame in asking for help or skipping articles that are too complicated or difficult to review.

All in all, the most important thing is to keep working at it. One only becomes a better reviewer by reviewing articles. theonesean 18:59, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Question 7

Anything else you'd like to add?

• I'd love to see more active participants at AfC! I'd like to say thanks to Rcsprinter123 for inviting me to answer these questions! I hope that I've been a helpful, um, interview-ee? --AmaryllisGardener 21:04, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
• AFC is yet another example of someone coming up with an idea for other people to do work based on the fantasy there's an infinite pool of ready volunteers. (See also -- let's stick a tag on top of this article!) Should be abolished as soon as possible.— Preceding unsigned comment added by NE Ent (talk • contribs) 02:02, 5 January 2015‎ (UTC)

  I thought this page was for AFC participants to answer questions; you are not an AFC participant, so why did you comment here? ekips39 20:18, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

• One additional problem not covered is reviewing an AfC submission seems to carry a risk of public humiliation if you get it wrong (eg: Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Ahead Learning Systems, Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Clemmie Moodie, Misplaced Pages talk:Articles for creation/Creative UK - all three I passed through AfC although in each case I felt notability was very borderline). This definitely leads me to procrastinate over reviews and only taking them on if I'm prepare to do a "GA Lite" review and have extreme confidence it will withstand an AfD. Ritchie333 09:59, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
• AfC is a valuable testing ground for new editors and articles – and both need nurturing. There are some very hardworking reviewers out there that make this happen. Libby norman (talk) 11:30, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
• I think you have to overcome a fear of "getting it wrong", as Ritchie pointed out. I've had 2 or 3 articles I've accepted which have later been marked for deletion as non-notable. My feeling is that AfC should be a nurturing tool, and that we should approve borderline cases, and then let the community as a whole make a decision it's not notable. I'd much rather that, than declining an article and then have that editor decide that Misplaced Pages isn't worth it. After rejoining AfC, I spend more time on it, between reviewing submissions, responding to questions from submitting editors, and helping get articles in shape for publication, than I do on any other areas. I think the folks that are involved in AfC need to remember (as most of them do), that this is the portal for new editors coming into the Misplaced Pages community. Onel5969 (talk) 16:27, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
• There are two areas of AfC which are the least fun for me. The most common is trying to review an article with "walls of sources" trying desperately to establish notability, usually by inheritance. It takes a long time to read through these, only to find that the subject isn't mentioned at all in the source. The second (and fortunately not all that common) is to be "taken-to-task" for approving or rejecting an article. Reviewers are often dealing with marginal cases which take judgement calls, and even experienced editors may disagree. I think in general reviewers welcome collaborative discussion about our acceptance procedures, but I don't know anyone who feels they become a better editor/reviewer because they received a "what the hell were you thinking you idiot, obviously another reason AfC should be shut down, nincompoops." 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 16:38, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
• I've taken to leaving AfC for periods to recharge my batteries (it can be frustrating and tiring). When I return I often find the templates and procedures have changed, sometimes beyond recognition. Some sort of stability would be beneficial, if I have to relearn everything each time I return it may be more trouble than it's worth! Sionk (talk) 18:41, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
• Thank you for doing this interview, and if anyone has any questions, please feel free to drop them on my talk page. I’ll be more than willing to help. theonesean 18:59, 5 January 2015 (UTC)