User:Pietrus1

Pietrus1
— Wikipedian ♂ —
Country	United States of America
Time zone	Arizona Time
Userboxes
	This user has been on Wikipedia for 12 years, 2 months and 12 days.
	This user is an FCC-licensed amateur radio operator, with Amateur Extra-class privileges.
Wikipedia:Babel
en	This user is a native speaker of the English language.
zh-3	該用戶能以熟練的中文進行交流。; 该用户能以熟练的中文进行交流。
	Search user languages

Welcome to my page. I'm working on Bulgarian things at the moment, but I also work on this page sometimes:

Areas of particular Interest

, , , , , , , , ,
Amateur/Ham Radio
Electronic Hardware
Ethnic cleansing

Current work

Improving amateur-radio coverage.
- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coaxial_cable
Slowly working on: Physical disability in my sandbox and Draft:Disability in the Republic of Ireland
Perpetually improving articles related to the Revival Process and late-communist Bulgaria.
- Revival Process
- 1989 expulsion of Turks from Bulgaria

CoI statement

I have potential conflicts of interest with various American "tech" companies, both software and hardware oriented. I try to avoid those pages completely.

73. Thanks for reading!

Showing impact data for Pietrus1

Please enable JavaScript to view this component.

Self-made GA review template that is slowly updated over time

Review Template

🔨 - There are no cleanup banners present:

Per the GA criteria, the presence of these tags will result in a quick failure of the review unless they have been addressed but the tag was not removed.

To be assessed.

🔨 - Notability:

Notability assessed per: WP:Notability

To be assessed.

🔨 - Previous Reviews/Comments:

Any previous comments or reviews on the article should be directly acknowledged here.

To be assessed.

Well-written:

🔨 - (a) (prose)

🔨 - Acronyms and technical terms:

Acronyms and technical terms are to be minimized. WP:Make technical articles understandable - GA is more forgiving than FA, but this serves as a general guide.

🔨 - Use jargon and acronyms judiciously.

Explain technical terms and expand acronyms when they are first used. In addition, you might consider using them sparingly thereafter, or not at all. Especially if there are many new terms being introduced all at once, substituting a more familiar English word might help reduce confusion.

To be assessed.

🔨 - If no precision is lost, use common terms instead of technical terms.

Substitute technical terms with common terms where they are completely equivalent.

To be assessed.

🔨 - Use less technical versions of words.

For instance, say "emissions from vehicles", rather than "vehicular emissions".

To be assessed.

🔨 - Consider prefacing explanatory sentences with caveats.

When a less complete or precise explanation is given to improve clarity, preface it with a phrase such as "Generally..." or "With some exceptions..." so the reader knows that there is more complexity behind the explanation. Follow the brief explanatory sentence(s) with more detail, or include a "robust definition" section so that the article as a whole is complete and precise.

To be assessed.

🔨 - Use bullet points where appropriate.

Use bullet point to split up long sentences, but avoid paragraph-length bullet points.

To be assessed.

🔨 - Use some short sentences and short paragraphs.

Comprehension decreases when average sentence length exceeds about 12 words. However, using too many short sentences in a row becomes monotonous and stilted; vary sentence length to maintain reader interest. Similarly, split long paragraphs into smaller ones.

To be assessed.

🔨 - Use language similar to what you would use in a conversation.

Many people use more technical language when writing articles and speaking at conferences, but try to use more understandable prose in conversation.

To be assessed.

🔨 - Write one level down.

The details are per WP:ONEDOWN. This should be the guiding light in technical rewrites and my assessment of them. Think of this like a final check.

To be assessed.

🔨 - Non-technical and non-grammatical Clarity:

The clarity of the article not pertaining to issues with grammar or technical concerns is documented here.

To be assessed.

🔨 - Conciseness:

Do any sentences meander on or use too many words to say something simple?

To be assessed.

🔨 - Spelling and grammar:

Does it have good spelling and grammar?

To be assessed.

🔨 - (b) (MoS)

🔨 - Lead:

The lead should provide a basic overview that summarizes each section of the article. The first sentence should define what the article is about in simple terms. The lead should be an appropriate size. It's usually one to two paragraphs for shorter articles, three to four for longer articles.

To be assessed.

🔨 - Layout:

Everything should be in the correct order. Each section should start with a == Level 2 Heading == with smaller headings dividing them when appropriate. The paragraphs should be an appropriate size. Avoid huge blocks of text or individual sentences on their own line. Images should be a reasonable size without obstructing or squishing the text. See also sections should only have relevant links that aren't found elsewhere in the article.

To be assessed.

🔨 - Embedded lists:

Assessed per MOS:EMBED – embedded lists should be used only when appropriate; sometimes the information in a list is better presented as prose. There should be no trivia lists or "in popular culture" lists as well.

To be assessed.

🔨 - Words-to-watch:

Make sure the article doesn't inappropriately use types of words that introduce bias: puffery, contentious labels, unsupported attributions, expressions of doubt, editorializing, inappropriate synonyms for "said" or these specific categories of imprecise word: euphemisms, cliches and idioms, relative time references, unspecified places or events. The article should also not use scare quotes.

To be assessed.

🔨 - (Optional for GA) Self-referential verbiage:

The article should not contain references to itself (e.g. "in this article...") or break the "fourth wall".

To be assessed.

🔨 - (Optional for GA) Quotation marks are straight

All other forms of quotation marks, including curly quotes and guillemets, should be replace with straight quotation marks.

To be assessed.

🔨 - Special Considerations for fiction:

All of this per WP:MoS/Writing about fiction

🔨 - Real-world vs. in-universe perspective issues:

To be assessed.

🔨 - Balanced coverage (not mostly plot summary):

To be assessed.

🔨 - Balance of primary and secondary sources:

To be assessed.

🔨 - Copyrighted work used sparingly:

To be assessed.

🔨 - (Optional for GA) Special Considerations for sports:

🔨 - Doesn't feel like a "stats dump":

To be assessed.

🔨 - Sport-specific formatting used appropriately:

To be assessed.

🔨 - Special Considerations for Stand-alone lists:sounds, and portals:

None of these are eligible to be good articles. Either they comply with the featured list or featured picture criteria or they do not. If they do, those items should be submitted for featured list or featured picture status.

To be assessed.

🔨 - Special Considerations for Featured articles:

These are not eligible for GA-status as they have already attained a higher status. Former featured articles are eligible for GA, but they must undergo a GA review.

To be assessed.

🔨 - Special Considerations for BLPs:

All of this per WP:Biographies of living persons and WP:MoS/Biography

🔨 - Privacy concerns:

🔨 - Avoid victimization

When it would be reasonable to assume that victims would face reprisal or retaliation for their speech, editors should avoid implicating them beyond the detail necessary to properly deliberate the subject matter.

To be assessed.

🔨 - Privacy of personal information

Things like the "contact information, account numbers, etc." of the subject are not included, either in the text or a source linked in the text. Note that the city or town where a subject lives can be appropriate.

To be assessed.

🔨 - Deadnaming and misgendering of transgender people

Refer to people whose gender might be questioned using the name and gendered words (man, woman, person) that reflect the person's most recent expressed self-identification as reported in the most recent reliable sources, even if it does not match what is most common in sources. Do not use gendered noun forms (mailman, waitress) that do not match their most recent self-identification. This holds for any phase of the person's life, unless they have indicated a preference otherwise. Whether a deadname or misgendering of a living person is removed is a matter of editorial judgment if it appears in reliable sources. In addition, whether revision deletion is used is based on administrative discretion, though suppression may be appropriate in some circumstances if there are privacy concerns. Both decisions are context-dependent.

To be assessed.

🔨 - People accused of crime

A living person accused of a crime is presumed innocent until convicted by a court of law. Accusations, investigations, arrests and charges do not amount to a conviction. Naming suspects before they're charged should also be avoided.

To be assessed.

🔨 - Date of birth

Original research must not be used to extrapolate the date of birth. A verified social media account of an article subject saying about themselves something along the lines of "today is my 50th birthday" may fall under self-published sources for purposes of reporting a full date of birth. It may be usable if there is no reason to doubt it.

To be assessed.

🔨 - Privacy of names

When the name of a private individual has not been widely disseminated or has been intentionally concealed, such as in certain court cases or occupations, it is often preferable to omit it, especially when doing so does not result in a significant loss of context. When deciding whether to include a name, its publication in non-media secondary sources, such as scholarly journals or the work of recognized experts, should be afforded greater weight than brief appearances in news stories.

To be assessed.

🔨 - Allegations

Material that may adversely affect a person's reputation should be treated with special care; in many jurisdictions, repeating a defamatory claim is actionable, and there are additional protections for subjects who are not public figures. If the subject has denied included allegations, their denial(s) should be reported too. Note that this is more important the less of a public figure the subject is.

To be assessed.

🔨 - General biographical style issues:

To be assessed.

🔨 - Tone

BLPs should be written responsibly, cautiously, and in a dispassionate tone, avoiding both understatement and overstatement.

To be assessed.

🔨 - People notable for only one event:

Wikipedia is not news, or an indiscriminate collection of information. Being in the news does not in itself mean that someone should be the subject of a Wikipedia article. The significance of an event or the individual's role is indicated by how persistent the coverage is in reliable sources.

To be assessed.

🔨 - (Optional for GA) Special Considerations for medical articles:

All of this per WP:Identifying reliable sources (medicine) and WP:MoS/Medicine-related articles

🔨 - Presentation of current medical knowledge rather than superseded claims:

To be assessed.

🔨 - Citation density

To be assessed.

🔨 - (Optional for GA) Special Considerations for current events:

🔨 - Avoiding recentism:

To be assessed.

🔨 - (Optional for GA) Special Considerations for military history:

All of this per WP:MoS/Military history

🔨 - Balanced coverage of any conflicts - not exclusively sources and perspectives from one side:

To be assessed.

🔨 - Delicate handling of disputed outcomes.

To be assessed.

🔨 - Source quality for casuality figures:

To be assessed.

🔨 - Infoboxes, maps, and navtemplates used appropriately:

To be assessed.

🔨 - (Optional for GA) Special Considerations for geography and places:

All of this per WP:WikiProject Cities/Settlements: Article structure, WP:Naming conventions (geographic names). WP:WikiProject Cities/US Guideline, and WP:Manual of Style/Icons

🔨 - Clear identification of the type of place:

To be assessed.

🔨 - Naming consistency:

To be assessed.

🔨 - Infobox, maps, and coordinates used appropriately:

To be assessed.

🔨 - Consistency of statistics and geographic facts:

To be assessed.

🔨 - Avoidance of "grab-bag" local detail:

To be assessed.

"Well-written" criteria result:

Undetermined

Verifiable with no original research, as shown by a source spot-check:

🔨 - (a) (references)

🔨 - Links Functioning:

Each included reference link or an archived version is live.

[X]:

🔨 - Citation Formatting:

An adequate citation style is used. Citations are inline.

To be assessed.

🔨 - Quote Issues:

There are no formatting issues with quotations, and the article does not contain over-quotation.

To be assessed.

🔨 - Divergence between reference and text:

There are no glaring text-source integrity issues.

[X]:

🔨 - (Optional for GA) Bare URLs:

No bare URLs are present in the text.

To be assessed.

🔨 - (Optional for GA) Source duplication:

All sources which are present are unique. Any duplicate citations are merged with other citations where appropriate.

To be assessed.

🔨 - (Optional for GA) Too many authors:

|display_authors is used for sources with more than five authors.

To be assessed.

🔨 - (Optional for GA) Consistent citation style and formatting:

Citations use a consistent style.

To be assessed.

🔨 - (Optional for GA) Citations reference specific pages or sections rather than the entire work:

References present in the article do not simply reference an entire work when the pages of the work are itemized. If individual pages or a timestamp cannot be referenced, then a general range is given.

[X]:

🔨 - (b) (citations to reliable sources)

🔨 - Flagging any unreliable sources:

Only reliable sources are used or where less-reliable sources are used, such as opinion pieces or tabloids, their use is appropriate for the material referenced.

[X]:

🔨 - (c) (original research)

🔨 - Checking each reference:

Each specific source is to include some confirmation that the source says what the article says the source says, often using text from the source and the article.

[X]:

🔨 - (d) (copyvio and plagiarism)

🔨 - Earwig Results:

A pass using the copyvio detector Good Article Review tool is run for initial detection of copyright violations and any offending content is removed.

To be assessed.

🔨 - Manual Pass:

Sources are to be checked manually where appropriate to ensure that no copyright violations are present in the text. Plagiarism or overly-close paraphrasing of sources can be considered copyright violation. Individual sources with issues are highlighted here and the exact text provided that is at issue.

[X]:

"Verifiable" criteria result:

Undetermined

Broad in its coverage:

🔨 - (a) (major aspects - broadness)

Does it accord with the coverage of other GA articles similar to its subject?

To be assessed.

🔨 - (b) (focus/scope)

Assessed per WP:DETAIL – Make sure that the article doesn't go into excessive detail. Any unhelpful trivia should be removed. Anything that is not part of the article's scope should also be removed. Unnecessary detail often also arises from either WP:COATRACK issues or excessive reliance on WP:PRIMARY sourcing.

To be assessed.

"Broadness" criteria result:

Undetermined

Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.

🔨 - Opinions presented as facts:

Any time an opinion is described, an article should make it clear whose opinion it is.

To be assessed.

🔨 - Facts presented as opinions:

The above should not be the case for agreed-upon facts.

To be assessed.

🔨 - Good/Bad Implications:

The article should not imply that one fact, opinion, or position is better than another unless that is the object of discussion and is well-sourced.

To be assessed.

🔨 - Participation in Arguments:

The article does not argue for a particular position or point-of-view.

To be assessed.

🔨 - Potentially Contentious Labels:

Contentious labels must be cited to high quality sources, especially if they're about living people.

To be assessed.

🔨 - Fringe Views:

Fringe views and other views in the minority should not be given the same weight as major views. If most reliable sources accept one position, then alternatives should not be presented as if they are prominent.

To be assessed.

🔨 - Minor Points Given Undue Weight:

Minor aspects of a topic should not be given undue importance. Even if they're not controversial, it's still a neutrality issue.

To be assessed.

🔨 - Competing Views Integrated Well:

The article should not be divided by point of view. It should not look like it is arguing with itself or look like certain ideas were segregated from the rest of the article. Criticism and controversy sections should be avoided when possible. If there are competing views of similar prominence in reliable sources, then one should not be given additional weight over the others.

To be assessed.

🔨 - No one source given outsized influence:

No individual source should have outsized influence on the article, nor should the ideas of one specific writer, expert, critic, or school of thought.

To be assessed.

🔨 - The article is not divided by point-of-view:

The article should not be divided by point of view. It should not look like it is arguing with itself or look like certain ideas were segregated from the rest of the article. Criticism and controversy sections should be avoided when possible. Similarly, the article's purpose should not be to take a specific stance on a topic.

To be assessed.

"Neutrality" criteria result:

Undetermined

Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.

🔨 - Pass/Fail and Explanation:

There are not any ongoing disputes surrounding the article. Constructive editing and collaboration do not count against an article's stability, including edits in pursuit in response to the GA review. Vandalism (that is reverted, of course) also does not count against this. If there is a dispute, the article can sometimes be held rather than failed.

To be assessed.

"Stability" criteria result:

Undetermined

Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:

🔨 - (a) (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales)

Ideally, articles should include illustrative images, video, or audio, though it is not a GA requirement for media to be included. If media is included, the following must be followed for GA.

🔨 - Images are appropriately tagged:

Check the page for each file to see if they have valid copyright tags.

To be assessed.

🔨 - Non-free images are given appropriate descriptions:

If the file is non-free content, it must have a non-free use rationale explaining why it can be used on that specific article.

To be assessed.

🔨 - (Optional for GA) Technical figures are labelled:

Check that any technical figures, schematics, etc. are appropriately labelled (e.g. as "figure 1")

To be assessed.

🔨 - (b) (appropriate use with suitable captions)

🔨 - Relevant images

Make sure the media is relevant to the article. Decorative or irrelevant images should be removed.

To be assessed.

🔨 - Suitable captions

Ensure all images have suitable captions.

To be assessed.

🔨 - (Optional for GA) Add alt-text to images

Make sure the media is relevant to the article. Decorative or irrelevant images should be removed. Make sure images have appropriate captions.

To be assessed.

"Illustration" criteria result:

Undetermined

Overall result:

Undetermined

Explanation:

To be assessed.

Notes for reviewers:

Don't just mark the criteria as pass or fail without providing feedback. If the article passes a criterion, why? What did you check for? If it fails a criterion, what needs to be improved? Unless you're quick failing the article, you should provide a list of each item that needs improvement in the relevant sections of the list here. If you are quick failing the article, you should still provide a summary of what the major issues are and what needs to be fixed.
An article doesn't have to be perfect to pass, it just needs to meet the good article criteria. Don't count it against an article if it's not written the way you would have written it, if it doesn't follow a certain format, if it's still short after covering the important information, or if it has any other imperfections that are not addressed by the good article criteria. Offering additional suggestions for improvement is always acceptable, but make it clear to the nominator that they are just suggestions and they are not part of the good article criteria.
Things like punctuation and spelling can be quickly addressed, and it's time consuming to list every single instance on a review. If it's a minor issue, the reviewer should fix it where they see it. If it's a problem throughout the article, then the problem can be stated without listing each example.
Typically, articles are not to be placed on hold until a review is otherwise finished.
The parameters for the "GAHybrid/item" markup are given here: Template:GAHybrid/item.

Credit to: WP:Good article reviewing guide, WP:Good article criteria, and IAWW

PROFILPELAJAR.COM

PROFILPELAJAR.COM

User:Pietrus1

Showing impact data for Pietrus1

Self-made GA review template that is slowly updated over time

Content Disclaimer