Here's an example comment

When experiments have gone awry (e.g., expansion of Wikipedia Education Program to India), the big concern has been the commitment of the project organizer to addressing the negative impacts of the experiment.

I'd suggest you assert some familiarity with the REward Borad, the ongoing debate over compensated contributions, and the Education Program/Education Foundation.

I suggest you start by making the case that the intent is to do something that furthers Wikipedia's mission (both in expanding/improving content, in an area revealed to be lacking by academic research; and also, in terms of drawing in new editors, and guiding them in Wikipedia's standards and etiquette in the process).

"It's an experiment", while true, is not persuasive or comforting to a skeptic.

Nix this phrase

I'd say this part less dramatically, e.g. "so we leave this decision to the individual."

I think it's good practice, but the primary motivator really to avoid COI? Seems to me it's more to avoid messy disagreements about how much work is put in. Can you just delete this phrase? The rest of the section is great.

Clarify. I think what you want to say here is, if you work for Room to Read, and edit Wikipedia in connection to the project, you MUST disclose your connection, you MUST opt out of donations based on your connection, but otherwise are welcome and encouraged to participate. RIght?

Working for a newspaper seems like a different kind of COI, and maybe needs a different statement. For instance,

• MUST disclose connection IF working on articles on your own paper or direct competitors (per WP terms of use)
• ENCOURAGED to work only on unrelated articles, at least until up to speed
• No special requirements re: payments to R2R

I'd reverse the order/emphasis: This should be primarily a statement of "here's a project I support" and put the disclaimer stuff at the end. Don't go out of your way to invite attack.

I'd nix this, sounds too apologetic. I think you've amply and convincingly talked about why it's a good idea on your blog already.

I would put this in fine print at the bottom. No need to emphasize.

I'm sure people will have questions about why U.S. newspapers, if the org's focus is on the developing world. Care to address?

You have it X'd out elsewhere, did you mean to put this in yet?

add a link?

A word or two about how you came to that number? I believe you told me Eni's research revealed 4,000 newpapers without articles...

I'd make this more general -- you want people blogging, tweeting, and facebooking about it, don't you?

Also get a few words in somewhere about who is "we"

I can imagine a Wikipedian bristling a bit at this

I'd remove this. YOu'd be amazed how frivolously some things are flagged for deletion. But, maybe there's something else to substitute to give a specific criterion.

Will there be a public and/or private venue for people to ask questions, get help, and discuss challenges they're working through? How about a list of resources and reference materials?

How about a section with annotated examples of a few Wikipedia articles on newspapers?

Needs lead section/overview (I'm sure you realize) As of now, the broad vision seems absent from the document, and I think it's important and should feature prominently. Express the goals and the supporting research right up front.

Glad you have this. Maybe make it more prominent? Like, maybe reference it in (or move it to) the lead section?

I'd be happy to make a short, project-specific screencast on how to do it, if you'd like. It'd be good to have resources available for people to do this.

Good list. A couple things to consider: (a) For contests, people are used to having very specific criteria. Maybe better to say "include at least 10 of the following 12" than to say "include all but here are a couple possible exceptions". That way people know if they "qualify".

(b) this one is somewhat in tension. What if no [[WP:RS]] exist for some of these items? You should probably speak to that explicitly: "Abandon this stub and start an article on a new paper instead," or "Do the best you can and document the shortcomings on the talk page," or...what?

Needs slightly more clarity about the overlapping criteria (Wikipedia's criteria vs. your project's criteria), and maybe some subtle softerning of language.

If you're going to describe it this way, you should really include a bit more info about what a next phase might look like. Assume there are at least a couple people out there who will assume the worst, and make noise about it. More info about the overall vision will help.

Say a little more? Seems there are two kinds of goals here: (a) recruiting and retaining editors (holy grail) and (b) increasing literacy about how Wikipedia and wikis work. Maybe two separate bullets?

Consider reversing order (put Wikipedia first)

This could probably use a little work

Don't worry about this, your system isn't that old.

Check this before you start -- perhaps already fixed?

Highly relevant section

Highly relevant section.

Also highly relevant section

Not practical because your system is custom-built.

Probably worth checking this. I can walk you through it, but it'll take a little more digging for me.

I am certain that Windows 10 is also included; this article must have been written before W10 was released.

Does NOT apply, you don't need to use this as a startup drive.

This, I think is obvious...probably better to leave it unsaid, people will lurk if that's what they want without prompting.

I like this.

Probably best to give a strong conclusion, reiterating the reason for eliminating CCB, and suggesting what the reader can do to bring that about, or some call to action. I'd put this paragraph in italics to indicate it's an offer separate from the main thesis of the piece.

Hmm...this way of phrasing it feels like a stretch.

This seems like an important point, which could use more explicit articulation.

Personally, I find this point rather spurious...but I suppose many would see it as important. Probably good to include it, but three paragraphs and that level of detail seems like too much for me. Just because you want to eliminate an agency doesn't make you responsible for anticipating every possible future job of every employee.

I don't understand the relevance of this point...eliminate it?

I'm unclear on what you're proposing -- eliminating both expenditure AND revenue? In identical amounts? Does CCB precisely cover its own expenses through fees that should be eliminated...??

Sequence issue -- you should make a clear case not only why CCB was useless in YOUR case, but also why that is more broadly indicative of its (lack of) value, before making your proposal.

One problem to avoid is, you don't want your reader to develop the impression that your goal is based on sour grapes. It's possible for the CCB to fail you, but to have value more generally; can you more clearly establish why it doesn't?

I'd cut this word.

This may be true, but understanding it requires more industry knowledge than I (or maybe much of your intended audience) has. I don't know what an Owner's Representative is, or anything about the conditions that would lead you to hire one.

I find this part a little hard to digest. "Operating on trust" is a complex position; my guess would be that your father was well positioned to know where to place his trust, based on deep relationships. I don't think you're in a position to indict the concept of operating on trust broadly -- what it looks like to me (based on my admittedly limited info) is that you merely placed your trust in the wrong company(s).

This phrase throws me a little. Were they claiming that the defects long predated their involvement? If so, is that really a problem -- were the contractually obligated to deal with those issues? Was their claim inaccurate?

I think to be compelling to a broad audience, this would need to be established with a lot of carefully-presented specifics.

This post combines three theses into one. Overall, I'd recommend pulling out three separate posts, which may refer to one another, and optimizing each:

1. The challenges of building a passive house
2. Broadly, the challenges of dealing with regulatory agencies and service providers
3. Criticism of CCB, and policy/reform recommendation(s)

You don't really need to write all three, of course...that's up to you. The one that interests me most is #3, and I'd suggest you focus your efforts on zeroing in on that one.

Of course, the titles should be closely tailored to each, to appeal to the right audience and to clarify the focus.

This is a wonderful video. However, at least from the perspective of understanding the issues with CCB, the specifics of the narrative arc from "collaborative partner" to adversary make the story harder to follow. If it's important to you to document this betrayal of trust, you writing a separate piece focusing on this is the way to go; but I see this as maybe the least important focus, relative to the other points you're making.

This is not clear to me. If it's an important point, draw it out more? Or maybe leave it out?

I'm a little unclear overall: was the mediator somebody unfamiliar with construction regulation? Do you want to accuse CCB of appointing somebody unqualified?

Do you want to highlight the slow-moving aspect? If so, hit the point harder...but consider leaving it out, or at least leaving it out of the initial framing of the CCB issues.

You'd do well to clarify which issues were attributable to whom. Were these all Birdsmouth's fault? Or did it span several contractors?

I like this, but it comes across as a bit of a non-sequitur. Tie it in more clearly?

I like the personal angle, but you could do a bit more to draw out why it's significant. How did OSHA change the world in which your father operated? How would the establishment of CCB (or something similar in Massachusetts) have impacted his business model?

Why not put this first to preserve chronology?

Summarizing the mission like this is a great foundation for your point.

By splitting this into separate posts, you'll be able to avoid awkward constructions like this.

I'd skip this point as well, or at least reframe it a bit. Money is the "bottom line" for most businesses; simply being motivated by money is not a bad thing in many people's eyes. An unethical approach is a problem, but that's not how you're framing it here.

I'd avoid framing your piece(s) in terms of how much you have learned. Of course, the perspective of somebody who has recently learned something makes for great and useful writing; but drawing attention to that fact can actually undermine perception of your expertise, for some readers.

I suggest you take a "lighter touch" in these pieces to your specific project. Of course you will want to draw attention to ESH; but with this topic, complexity is your biggest challenge in getting through to the reader, and specifics like these sadly serve to increase the amount of information the reader has to hold.

Remove italics

Simplify? "The paper contains no content analysis that..."

Two points made late in the piece should be moved or echoed in the lead paragraph:

1. Authors failed to consider nature of "conflict" and whether it was actually conflict,
2. It's to late to get the story right in the popular press.

Should be "more than"

While I realize the Signpost has run notes like this in the past, I feel we should not. I do not recall seeing similar disclaimers from professionals writing op-eds in any other publication; and I don't think it conveys information useful to our readers. I prefer to keep these disclaimers short and relevant. (If anybody expresses confusion, or for any reason at all, I don't object to your pointing it out in the comment thread.)

This is good, but I feel that with a few more words, or another sentence, you might be able to land the point more strongly in the conclusion.

I think this paragraph would make more sense further up, merged with the paragraph immediately after the bullet list.

It seems to me your piece raises the QUESTION of what the organizer's job is, and suggests that they might define it in various ways (either "to generate Wikiepedians" or "to report bugs" or a blend, or other things). So stating "your job" uncritically seems overly simplified here.

If I'm reading your overall piece correctly, THIS is your thesis -- so it's strange to have it come AFTER the point about a human voice. Reverse?

Purpose to this word? Delete

In my opinion (and I realize this is not my op-ed, feel free to ignore) this is the predominant point.

Can this be phrased in a way that doesn't require users who don't know this phrase to click a link?

This is a bit jarring -- I think many readers will think, "why would I think they're stupid, or that it's their fault? (I know that in practice many Wikipedians may ACT that way, but I believe very few would literally hold this view.) Is there another way to phrase?

Spell it out -- "generating bug reports" or "generating data about newbie experiences" perhaps?

I read this as the thesis sentence; ideally, it should come sooner than the third paragraph.

Some of our readers may have no knowledge of Phabricator etc. Might be worth expanding to a separate paragraph, to describe why this is valuable, and offer at least a brief note on how to do it.

Literal-minded Wikipedians may hasten to point out that the number is not uncountable.

Perhaps "at the instructor" or similar? Apart from this word, the list has an air of general applicability, which I think is appropriate.

Nicely illustrated!

Perhaps add "in Visual Editor"? If not present, the reader has to click the link to understand what you're talking about, since right-clicking works in most places for this purpose.

I know, and agree with, what you're getting at here; but a critical reader will likely seize on this as a point of contention. Is there a way to state it more clearly as a problem?

Should link to [[CAPTCHA]] (perhaps with the phab ticket in parentheses after)

Add a link, or define briefly; many Wikipedians will not know what this is.

Very strong claim, very subjective. Rephrase

Does this word add anything?

Unless you have stopped running them for good -- and want to draw attention to that fact -- this should say "have run."

Remove this -- Peter has run a number of workshops in Namibia, "attempts" implies he failed to even run workshops.

I would delete -- lessen the sense that this is you conveying your opinion, and I don't think "good" actually adds much here. I think it's still quite complimentary to them to say they provided an overview.

Anything you can state (either via links in the doc, or to me) that justifies your numbers will be helpful. We should fact-check all specifics, and we're pretty spread thin, so the more you can help me understand your reasoning, the better.

I think the piece demonstrates this clearly; but the more it's stated explicitly in the lead, the more it reads like an opinion piece, the less like a news piece. I'd urge you to reduce the evaluative phrasing, I think the piece will have a greater impact; but this is just a suggestion, not a requirement. Do with it as you like.

Best to delete I think, a distraction for some who are not too familiar with time zone notation, and IMO not a terribly important point to specify.

You've buried the lead! By my reading, this is the heart of the piece. Can you work this info into the first couple of sentences?

No "purpose" column?

Sorry to say- I have no idea what this graphic intends to convey. The labels along the bottom are meaningless to me. Can it be clarified?

I'm sorry to say, I have no idea what this graphic is trying to communicate. The labels along the bottom are meaningless to me. Can it be more explicit in some way?

This is excellent -- can we include a suggestion about how to best reach him? Wiki talk page, email...?

What's that?

It's not clear exactly what this means -- state more precisely?

Good point, but could be a little clearer. Maybe add "immediately before"?

Nice quote! Great to have the clear articulation of the high-level benefit.

As a less technical reader, I'm feeling a bit lost in a sea of jargon by this point. Possible to define any of these terms -- especially this one -- within the text?

Awkward phrase, possible to improve?

Is it possible to present this in the context of any objective measure of reliability? I.e., can you say something like "uptime increased by x% from 2015 to 2016. Survey responses indicated that developers noticed, and that they valued uptime above other factors."

I think "believe" would be stronger. If you accept my suggestion above of changing the byline to just IJethroBT, how about including a direct quote from Pax here?

Quantify instead of saying "many" -- possible to say something like "100 efforts were thwarted in the first 7 days" or similar?

I think one of the great outcomes here is that you showed the value of establishing consensus around a bit of functionality, independent of the assessment of how to implement it. Once consensus was established, a creative technical approach emerged. Maybe add a paragraph to describe this more explicitly?

Possible to make this point without naming a specific tool that many readers will not know about? (e.g., "in a discussion on Wikimedia's bug tracking site" or similar)

Seems to me that some users also emphasized the value, in certain circumstances, of permitting users to edit one another's pages -- seems worth a mention, no?

The article consistently places IJethroBT in the first person, and Pax in the third person. I'd suggest sticking with that, and giving IJethorBT the exclusive byline. If that's undesirable, it should be rewritten a bit to make this contrast less confusing to the reader.

This is good stuff, but I'd suggest moving it further down in the piece -- as I understand it, the feature is aimed at reducing all manner of harassment, not just that related to transgender issues. Early on, it should talk about the kind of harassment that can/does occur on user pages; later on, bring Pax's personal angle into it.

This article will be more accessible if it answers clearly "what is a user page" (as distinct from user talk, and from subpages) before getting into what is protected how.

Good; there should also be a clear indication early on of what IJethroBT's role was/is.

Delete -- the more straightforward the better. If we can quantify how frequent an issue it is, we should do so; but adjectives like this will make the piece feel less neutral to our more skeptical readers.

This part is IMO too technical for the lead sentence. It's worthwhile information, but many affected readers will not know or care what is an edit filter vs. a user permission etc. Put this further down in the article, to make the lead stronger.

This announcement from Bangladesh jumped out to me. First time they have run it, and substantial numbers to report. I don't know if there are other reports like this out there, but it would be nice to mention this; perhaps in a caption for a photo from their WLM? https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimedia-l/2016-November/085357.html

I'd rather see a second sentence, which might make it possible to remove this awkward phrase.

Should drop this; if there are significant contributions from others, let's indicate them in the captions themselves. "Others" does not mean anything to the reader, and doesn't really give credit to an individual in a meaningful way.

Important to answer "what is the event" in the first couple of sentences. Let's drop "massive" in favor of some numbers that indicate the scale and let the readers conclude for themselves how big it is.

The lead could be 2 or even 3x as long; let's be sure it offers sufficient context to readers who might be encountering WLM for the first time.

Is the external value of a thesis generally considered to be the lit review? As a non-academic, I find that idea depressing. I would hope there is more value than that in a significant number of theses.

Honesty is of course a very important concept, but it feels very out of place in this bullet point. If it's a major focus, I'd use a separate bullet point to explain your thinking more fully; otherwise, delete.

Lovely phrase, captures your idea beautifully.

This paragraph is key! Excellent stuff. I would suggest rewriting this one a few times...really get this one right. Excellent core, but there are layers of perfection ahead of you.

It's either superlative or it's not. Should be either "the last" or else "a significant" or something like that.

And the Wikipedian in me would argue, it should be, it's not the last bastion. It's one of several. Academia has a responsibility, journalism and government and civil society do too, and many of us try to play this role outside traditional institutions. Academia is not unique in this respect. (But maybe academics would like being told it is, I don't know.)

I would replace this with "with insufficient." It's a very strong proposition that a lot of people have no concern at all; but it's a very defensible position that huge numbers of people in huge numbers of transactions exhibit insufficient concern.

Are you one of them? Can you clarify your relationship to the competition? Maybe we should run an introductory "Wugapodes is..." statement next to your byline.

"anecdotal evidence suggests it does"?

"morale"

A link or a date might be helpful; you've presented enough data, except for this one piece, for the reader to take a look at themselves.

Important point. Would be clearer if not couched in double-negative.

"impact", so as not to repeat "effective" within sentence?

This is "outcomes" of what? Of the GA Cup? Unclear. Better section title?

Ah, I see. Yes, this point is worth making. I think you should reduce the detail in the preceding text, though. You're not making a strong argument here, so the data and half-arguments may come across as noise.

You're suggesting, but not clearly asserting, that pass rate is a proper measure of review quality. It's plausible, but I'm not convinced.

This article doesn't address this. Would be nice if you could reference some kind of evidence, maybe a quote from a frequent GA reviewer?

delete, redundant of "review quality" earlier in sentence

Is it so surprising, though? Wouldn't serious competitors tend to hold off on reviews they're planning to do, until the competition begins, to increase their chances at a trophy?

add "...than it would otherwise"

includes

I don't quite understand what this means -- important that this be clear, if it introduces an entire section.

tighten? this phrase jangles, might be a personal pet peeve

What an excellent suggestion.

Maybe more explicit, like "if my hypothesis is correct"

I understand what you're saying, but for an audience of non-statisticians I might say "makes intuitive sense"

Outstanding! Love this.

You have two overlapping ideas in this paragraph: two things can coincide/correlate, but leave open a question of causation. If your point is about causation, you can't use that to justify denying that correlation exists. Two paragraphs, one on each?

From looking at the chart, it seems to be largely true...I'm a bit confused.

Earlier in the piece (not exactly sure where), I'd like to have read something explicitly stating the important differences between the backlog drives and the GA Cup. In what respects are the GA Cup more substantial? Perhaps in the same paragraph summarizing Figureskatingfan's message?

Fantastic graphic

The quote that follows is more than a mere "statement" -- it's an essay of its own! This would be MUCH better as a 2-4 sentence paraphrase. Don't need many of the specifics in here.

? Are you stating that you and Figureskatingfan are the two creators of GA Cup? If so, needs to be more direct. If not, what do you mean?

There's no subject who is facing anything; change to "With..." (or rewrite sentence with a subject)

should be "more than"

This needs to be more specific. Are you considering all GA Cups? All GA backlog drives on enwp? Other languages?

should be "needing review"

Even as an experienced Wikipedian, I have a hard time grasping how this supports the claim before the statement. Can you draw out the connection a bit more -- or else remove the evidence? I don't think it's necessary to your point.

We try to avoid footnotes in the SP -- if there are ways to incorporate these in the main text, let's do that.

Let's include a nav box for relevant past SP coverage. See this search: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Search?search=%22good+article%22&prefix=Wikipedia%3AWikipedia+Signpost%2F20&fulltext=Search+all+articles&fulltext=Search&searchToken=ecg5l0m2ox7yrytcirfcmqwum

Since the piece is so focused on how the GA Cup is impacting the backlog overall, can you say a few words in this paragraph to assert that reducing the backlog was part of the original point of the GA Cup? (assuming that's true, of course)

This doesn't seem like quite the right phrase. Perhaps "sustain after the conclusion of the competition"?

I'd like to see stronger framing here -- you've made a solid point, it deserves more assertive presentation.

Excellent point. Very glad you cover this.

This is a bit confusing -- I thought this paragraph was going to be looking at GA outside the context of the competition. I think I see the point you're getting at, but it should be more explicit.

spell out

This article just got much more interesting! But, you should tease this point in the first couple sentences (perhaps the headline/subhead) or you may lose readers.

simpler alternative: "the backlog has shrunk during the competition"

insert (GA)

Subject of sentence is GA Cup, but not stated. Replace this phrase with "GA Cup awards participants..."

insert "competition" or "contest"

More specific: "For each of the annual competitions" or "for each GAWC"

This claim is a little too bold, given the evidence presented. Were other language Wikipedias considered, or other backlogs (like A or FA)? If this is limited to GA on enwp, state that more explicitly. Or if there is somebody familiar who could supply a quote, that's another way to get at it.

I don't entirely follow this -- possible to explain more clearly? Use 2 or 3 sentences instead of 1? (Or else, don't get into this much detail -- maybe not necessary)

Specify date?

delete

The fact that it needs review doesn't itself create a backlog -- slight rephrase? New sentence?

How so? FA and A are both typically considered "above" GA, no? Less specific word?