Wikinews:Flagged revisions/Requests for permissions/LivelyRatification


 * Promoted. Consensus and no opposition after over one week. Congratulations, --RockerballAustralia contribs 03:55, 20 September 2021 (UTC)


 * Placeholder for LivelyRatification [I will finish proper formatting later]. She has explicitly expressed interest in becoming a Reviewer.--Bddpaux (talk) 16:21, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
 * I am busy IRL and will finish setting this up correctly in the next 36 hours. And, I need to try to review a current article here as well!--Bddpaux (talk) 16:22, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm reopening this, as I think I'm ready to renominate myself. In the past month, I've written 12 articles, most of which have had no major issues, and have been published with only minor copyedits. I've been a Wikinewsie now for about 10 months, and in that time, I've gained a good understanding of how the site works, and what is expected in an article. Since this nomination, I have tried to help out new articles in development or review, and I helped review Two US congressmen fly into Kabul; trip reportedly unauthorized with acagastya. I think that generally, I behave myself both on WN and on the IRC in a kind and respectful way that is befitting of a reviewer. If you have any questions, please do put them below and I'll try to get to them. Note the clock on my user page - I may be asleep, but I'll try to answer any questions within 24 hours at the latest. --LivelyRatification (talk) 05:35, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

Note
I genuinely feel it is way too soon, and I would encourage anyone requesting reviewer rights (not just one volunteer in this context) to be first be able to write articles which require little to no significant fixes from reviewer perspective and to attempt reviewing other articles for practice. I haven't seen that happening -- and more importantly, I have not seen helping newbies and showing them how things are done. Other concern being lack of descriptive comments (or even comments) in edit summaries which leaves the viewer clueless what was changed and why it was changed. There are some improvements I would like to see first. Speaking of which, I do have concerns about the way some users handled disagreements (in a moment of heat, one can be caustic, I do have my sympathies) which tbrh, does not go well with their request, and will need to show that they have really improved on that front. •–• 04:49, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
 * You sure are asking for a lot, pulling from a cluster of volunteers........and we have no shortage of bally-hoo flying around this place, but can't even seem to manage to push out GOOD articles on a routine basis, with so very little Reviewer engagement, but: OK. Let's give it a while. Fine.--Bddpaux (talk) 14:14, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Reviewers do need to have a helping attitude, and also, they should not miss out on important things. I am yet to see it.  And that was one of the things we looked at -- the commitment and how much they are willing to help others' artices.  Reviewers need to do that, and one way I can know one is ready is by seeing how they interact with others and I haven't seen that.  Let's let them have have some practice review articles, and let their articles be consistently the best they could have done, and then would be a better time. •–•  15:39, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

Votes

 * – seems to know what they are doing. --RockerballAustralia contribs 06:32, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
 * - Vote cast considering vocalised and shared concerns the present status quo is neither productive nor sustainable, the status of my application (which has seemingly entered a period of permanent deadlock) and Lively's commitment to the Wikinews project (if not hyper-localised in scope). --JJLiu112 (talk) 03:38, 13 September 2021 (UTC)
 * - Visible devotion during this complex situation and a considerable quantity of valuable contributions lead me to cast a support vote. Henrymyman (talk) 01:58, 15 September 2021 (UTC)
 * - Good luck! Xbspiro (talk) 02:37, 18 September 2021 (UTC)