User talk:Crystalite13

Hi Crystalite13! I noticed your contributions and wanted to welcome you to the Wikipedia community. I hope you like it here and decide to stay.

As you get started, you may find this short tutorial helpful:

Learn more about editing

Alternatively, the contributing to Wikipedia page covers the same topics.

If you have any questions, we have a friendly space where experienced editors can help you here:

Get help at the Teahouse

If you are not sure where to help out, you can find a task here:

Volunteer at the Task Center

Happy editing! Jay8g [V•T•E] 19:54, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

Thanks a lot! I'll definitely look at the Task Center. It's nice to see how kind this community is! Crystalite13 (talk) 22:29, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

Hi Crystalite13! We're so happy you wanted to play to learn, as a friendly and fun way to get into our community and mission. I think these links might be helpful to you as you get started.

• The Wikipedia Adventure Start Page
• The Wikipedia Adventure Lounge
• The Teahouse new editor help space
• Wikipedia Help pages

-- 00:41, 23 September 2025 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited National Route 7 (South Korea), you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Donghae, National highway and Gangwon-do. Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, --DPL bot (talk) 07:53, 26 September 2025 (UTC)

Hi. The destubbing is more than just about length. The articles submitted should be fully sourced and formatted with no tags on the articles.♦ Dr. Blofeld 18:49, 29 September 2025 (UTC)

sorry. do you think you could give a few specific examples so I know what I'm doing wrong?

I'm rather new to this, apologizes again Crystalite13 (talk) 19:57, 29 September 2025 (UTC)

Each sentence/paragraph should be sourced and no tags. Only add them to the destubbed list once you've sourced them, thanks. National Route 7 (South Korea) for instance has been tagged since 2014 and is still mostly unsourced.♦ Dr. Blofeld 15:10, 30 September 2025 (UTC)

Hi there, thanks for reviewing GAs! Quick question; for your review at Talk:Bhatura/GA1, how did you manage to access the paywalled/offline sources [23] (Sidhu 2012) and [24] (Parimala 2015)? Asking out of curiosity and to further my own research skills. Cheers. GoldRomean (talk) 19:09, 16 October 2025 (UTC)

Hi @Crystalite13, I noticed you are new to GA reviewing. I am concerned that your reviews lack comments on all the criteria. In fact, in your twelve reviews so far, there is only evidence of one spot check, and there is not a single comment on any of the criteria other than broadness. In the future, I suggest structuring your reviews around the criteria, and making a comment on most or all of the criteria in every review. It is very rare that the only issue with a GA nomination will be broadness, let alone for twelve nominations in a row. If you would like help with this, just let me know and I would be happy to co-review with you? IAWW (talk) 18:27, 17 October 2025 (UTC)

Thank you for bringing this to my attention. In the future I will try to focus on other criteria and not depend on broadness. You are generous to offer help, I'll contact you for my next review! Crystalite13 (talk) 18:47, 17 October 2025 (UTC)

Sounds good, feel free to reply here when you start a review. IAWW (talk) 19:52, 17 October 2025 (UTC)

I think that review went well. Hopefully you should feel comfortable evaluating all the criteria now and can do so in the rest of your ongoing and future reviews. Always feel free to ping me at any reviews you are doing if you want further help or have any questions. Keep in mind that that review was of a quite high quality article. In other reviews you will likely find many more problems. IAWW (talk) 00:03, 21 October 2025 (UTC)

Alright, thanks so much for your support! I already have quite a few articles I want to catch up now. Crystalite13 (talk) 00:04, 21 October 2025 (UTC)

So, will the review be marked as done on the Backlog drive page? Crystalite13 (talk) 00:07, 21 October 2025 (UTC)

Once you pass the article and update the backlog drive page one of the coordinators will check it is all correct and mark it as done IAWW (talk) 09:53, 21 October 2025 (UTC)

Crystalite13, I'd just add that it's always best to make at least a few small comments for improvements: nothing is ever perfect (even my work! ;-) ). Many thanks for your reviews. Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:31, 5 February 2026 (UTC)

Got it! I'm still learning, so advice is always appreciated. Crystalite13 (talk) 15:52, 5 February 2026 (UTC)

Hello Crystalite13. I had watchlisted the ChatGPT review because I was interested in seeing how the review of this highly viewed, level 5 vital article would turn out, and so I was disappointed to see that despite the good advice you've received here from experienced editors, you still passed that review with hardly any constructive commentary. I believe I speak for most GA editors when I say that we submit these articles for review in order to get critical, fresh eyes to collaborate on them and improve the encyclopedia, and these sorts of "Everything looks good, pass!" reviews are not that. As Chiswick Chap mentioned above, nothing is ever perfect - even with articles by seasoned GA/FA editors like him or Epicgenius, whose article you also passed two days ago with nothing but check marks, there's always something that can be improved upon. I strongly encourage you to read other GA reviews to get an idea of what sort of comments are more typical, and perhaps work on getting an article to GA yourself so as to better understand the criteria. DrOrinScrivello (talk) 19:38, 23 February 2026 (UTC)

alright, sorry, I guess I'm not really good at this Crystalite13 (talk) 19:46, 23 February 2026 (UTC)

i couldn't see enough I guess, I'll try to find more Crystalite13 (talk) 19:47, 23 February 2026 (UTC)

I'm genuinely not trying to discourage you, I just think you might be benefitted by getting more experience improving articles which would help give you the tools you need to review. One very small example: in a quick skim of the ChatGPT article, I noticed some occasions when logical quotation style wasn't used. I didn't even know what LQ was until I had done a significant amount of editing here, and so would have also missed that in a review (that's a very nitpicky example, but you get my point). That of course doesn't mean you need to know the MOS backwards and forwards to be a good reviewer, but there's no substitute for mainspace editing experience. DrOrinScrivello (talk) 20:09, 23 February 2026 (UTC)

after my AfC got rejected I gave up mainspace editing and Crystalite13 (talk) 20:15, 23 February 2026 (UTC)

i just don't know what to do so I do GA reviewing and I don't really know how to do that either so Crystalite13 (talk) 20:16, 23 February 2026 (UTC)

I get how having an article declined can be frustrating. Writing articles from scratch is one of the most difficult things to do as an editor here, though, and not succeeding on your first try is nothing to be ashamed of. You might be interested in the task center, which provides opportunities to improve your editing skills in various parts of the project and in various ways. Something to consider, anyway. DrOrinScrivello (talk) 20:27, 23 February 2026 (UTC)

It can be really hard to find room for improvement in Epicgenius and Chiswick Chap's articles! But I do think reviewing GAs by working through each of the criteria one by one is a good way to contribute and see what great work on Wikipedia looks like. While you're learning, you might have more success if you specifically pick articles by editors who have done only a few GAs -- it might be easier to spot the areas for improvement if they are also a little less experienced.

Another valuable way to contribute that can be satisfying and let you see lots of parts of the encyclopedia is fixing articles tagged with problems in their introductions. Most of these are tagged with the problem "lead too short", and since the lead section is just supposed to summarize what the article says (per WP:LEAD), you can make a big improvement without a lot of extra research just by reading the article and adding whatever is missing from the summary.

More generally, it can be a lot of fun to pick a specific "maintenance tag" on articles about a topic you like and work your way through solving them -- I use this page to find book articles to fix up, for example, and I'd be happy to help you find a similar list for a topic that interests you. We'd love for you to continue contributing to Wikipedia, and have it be enjoyable and rewarding! ~ le 🌸 valyn (talk) 21:10, 23 February 2026 (UTC)

wait, how did you find this page? Crystalite13 (talk) 22:41, 23 February 2026 (UTC)

Vanamonde93 mentioned that they were concerned you were having a discouraging experience but they had to log off and couldn’t reply. I take an interest in GA reviewing and welcoming new users so I took a look and chimed in. ~ le 🌸 valyn (talk) 00:15, 24 February 2026 (UTC)

Vanamonde? Crystalite13 (talk) 00:19, 24 February 2026 (UTC)

You can see your previous conversation with them about the GA backlog drive in one of the sections below. ~ le 🌸 valyn (talk) 00:34, 24 February 2026 (UTC)

While I agree with this sentiment, there is nothing strictly wrong with "everything looks good, pass" reviews if they are actually correct. Those reviews are also necessary sometimes to cut down the backlog.

In the future when bringing up reviewing issues, I think it should be required to identify some actual issues that have been overlooked by the reviewer, which can be used to say "if the reviewer missed this and this, they probably shouldn't be GA reviewing." Of course, for an article like ChatGPT, unless written by an exceptional writer, there is probably gonna be multiple issues which can be identified in this manner. IAWW (talk) 23:46, 23 February 2026 (UTC)

Honestly, fair point — especially since the logical quotes example mentioned above actually wouldn’t be expected in a GA review; GAs don’t have to follow most of the Manual of Style. ~ le 🌸 valyn (talk) 00:27, 24 February 2026 (UTC)

ChatGPT should be definitely sent to GAR. 🍕BP!🍕 (🔔) 02:49, 25 February 2026 (UTC)

wait, how did YOU get here? Crystalite13 (talk) 02:58, 25 February 2026 (UTC)

For how I got here, I am the one that nominated ChatGPT for GA. ChatGPT is one of the most viewed articles on wikipedia so many people pay attention to it. Others are likely to see your review. Czarking0 (talk) 15:34, 4 March 2026 (UTC)

Not wanting to pile on or anything, but I started WT:GAN#ChatGPT review for input on what should happen to the article's status HurricaneZeta^C 03:24, 25 February 2026 (UTC)

@HurricaneZeta The article is poorly reviewed again, but this time from different reviewer. ~2026-16480-09 (talk) 23:05, 15 March 2026 (UTC)

I don't think this thread still needs to be commented on. Crystalite13 (talk) 23:35, 15 March 2026 (UTC)

As an addendum comment to the ChatGPT GAN review: I don't wish to pile on further to this discussion (especially how Crystalite is acting in good faith with their GAN reviews), but I think it's worth highlighting that the quality of sources in the article was not assessed in accordance with the GAN criteria. The article cites CNET, ZDNET, and Forbes.com; all of them are listed in WP:RSP as "generally unreliable". I know that the Forbes.com citation is probably okay given a Forbes reporter wrote the article, but this detail should have been indicated on the review page as justification for citing that source, especially how other editors might raise concerns on the Forbes source along the lines of WP:FORBESCON. Similarly, WP:CNET and ZDNET's RSP entry list both sources are generally unreliable since they were published post-Red Ventures acquisition; why would it be acceptable to cite those sources in the article, given the above concerns? All of this should have been indicated on the review page. Icepinner (Come to Hakurei Shrine!) 05:39, 25 February 2026 (UTC)

im so sorry Crystalite13 (talk) 06:06, 25 February 2026 (UTC)

what do I do know Crystalite13 (talk) 06:29, 25 February 2026 (UTC)

i was sick, but now that the drive is over, I will help out with distributing barnstars, and after that, I will hopefully finish my remaining GA reviews, but with all this, I'm not sure its far for the nominators to have a reviewer as me, so I might return them to the queue. Crystalite13 (talk) 17:10, 2 March 2026 (UTC)

Please double-check my math to make sure I've added up your points properly! Bgsu98 (Talk) 21:15, 31 October 2025 (UTC)

Will do! Crystalite13 (talk) 21:15, 31 October 2025 (UTC)

just counted it up and also got 38, so plus word count with 26 points that would be around 64 points Crystalite13 (talk) 21:20, 31 October 2025 (UTC)

i calculated the word bonus and its around 26.3 points so I guess you can round it to 26 Crystalite13 (talk) 21:17, 31 October 2025 (UTC)

Hi Crystalite13, I noticed that you promoted the Zeng Zesheng DYK nomination to Prep 7 and that you promoted it to the first (picture) hook. Generally the first, middle and last hooks are left vacant in the bottom prep in case there's any bumps that need to be made from other queues/preps. TarnishedPath^talk 04:38, 14 November 2025 (UTC)

Ps, see WP:DYKBOTTOMPREP. TarnishedPath^talk 04:41, 14 November 2025 (UTC)

sorry. Crystalite13 (talk) 15:58, 14 November 2025 (UTC)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by SafariScribe was:

This submission's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article—that is, they do not show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject (see the guidelines on the notability of people). Before any resubmission, additional references meeting these criteria should be added (see technical help and learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue). If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia.

 The comment the reviewer left was:

This was deleted in May 2024 but there could be some notability, though not always if we see it again today, but shockingly, it has been deleted in August 2025 meaning that there is no way notability would be possible just from August till now. They may not be the same discussions but they are for same person and the deletion rationales are outrightly delete; if there were "weak keeps", "keeps", etc, then we could possibly say that the deletion may not have been done well, hence this draft. For me, this is a waste of time and resubmitting it does no good to the community; lets give at least two years chance to see if there will be notability, perhaps we know there is no deadline.

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit after they have been resolved.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:KreekCraft (Youtuber) and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you do not edit your draft in the next 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
• If you need any assistance, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 17:08, 15 November 2025 (UTC)

Hey @SafariScribe, I'm new to wikipedia, so I was hoping you could explain a little more about the notability issues. are my sources not strong enough or do I not have enough? I'm not exactly keen on waiting 2 years so I want to understand a little more why my sources arent strong enough. Crystalite13 (talk) 00:54, 16 November 2025 (UTC)

@SafariScribe ping Crystalite13 (talk) 18:28, 25 November 2025 (UTC)

We have WP:NYOUTUBE. Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 19:25, 25 November 2025 (UTC)

Hello, Crystalite13! Having an article draft declined at Articles for Creation can be disappointing. If you are wondering why your article submission was declined, please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! Safari ScribeEdits! Talk! 17:08, 15 November 2025 (UTC)

On 2 December 2025, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Brandon Saad, which you recently nominated. The fact was ... that Brandon Saad was the first Saginaw Spirit alumnus to win the Stanley Cup? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Brandon Saad. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Brandon Saad), and the hook may be added to the statistics page after its run on the Main Page has completed. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to nominate it.

 — Amakuru (talk) 00:03, 2 December 2025 (UTC)

YAYYYY Crystalite13 (talk) 01:13, 2 December 2025 (UTC)

Hi! Reviewing your work on BBC controversies as part of the Jan 2026 GOCE drive, I do not believe these two edits can be considered a thorough copyedit of this 14,000+ word article. Could you please consider going through the article again for a more in-depth copyedit, or removing this article from your counts and re-adding the tag? Thank you for your participation in the drive :). GoldRomean (talk) 21:07, 29 January 2026 (UTC)

ill try to finish it, but with little time left in the drive, kindly disqualify-actually, I'm not sure really how many of my edits are good enough for a thorough copyedit, so you might want to disqualify all of them. Crystalite13 (talk) 21:40, 29 January 2026 (UTC)

I remember the first article I ever copyedited for a GOCE drive; it was long and relatively complicated and probably not the best choice for a new copyeditor, and I think I probably went through it three or four times before I was satisfied (and, looking back, I still see mistakes or clunky wording that I had overlooked!).

I've re-tagged and removed the article from the pages for now, but I see you've started going back—thanks, and feel free to re-add it once you've finished the full c/e. Tony1's exercises really are great, and I wish I'd found them sooner. I'll just echo the advice of Baffle gab1978 and others: go slow, ask questions if needed, and quality over quantity :). GoldRomean (talk) 22:01, 29 January 2026 (UTC)

I'm unfamiliar with how to count words on any article. Is there a tool to do so or any other method?

Thank you! MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 01:11, 1 February 2026 (UTC)

Yep! Go to Wikipedia:Prosesize. It has all the download instructions, which are super easy to follow! Crystalite13 (talk) 01:24, 1 February 2026 (UTC)

Thanks! That is awesome! MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 16:25, 1 February 2026 (UTC)

I forgot to ask something, the number of words is before the GA review starts, correct? Not the amount after. MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 17:43, 1 February 2026 (UTC)

Correct, the number of words before the review starts! Crystalite13 (talk) 18:00, 1 February 2026 (UTC)

Hi Crystalite13. A belated welcome to Wikipedia and to the GA process. Your enthusiasm for it is commendable, and I hope you keep participating. I am a little concerned that you may not have the experience necessary to be a coordinator for the backlog drive. As far as I can see your only previous participation in reviewing was during the October drive, and at that point in time several of your reviews did not cover all of the relevant criteria. I recognize that you have put in a good-faith effort to be more comprehensive, but I believe a little more experience will be helpful before you have to evalulate other editors' reviews. If you still wish to be a backlog drive coordinator, I wonder if you would defer to your colleagues in checking reviews, or perhaps ask them to double-check your work? Courtesy ping to @Fade258, Bgsu98, and Vestrian24Bio:. Please take this in the spirit in which it is intended: I think you will have a more fruitful time if you first pick up more experience in writing and reviewing. Best, Vanamonde93 (talk) 18:05, 1 February 2026 (UTC)

I suppose I am a little new, so I have no problem with others reviewing my work I guess. Thanks for the concern? Crystalite13 (talk) 18:08, 1 February 2026 (UTC)

Hi @Vanamonde93. I hope you are doing well. Thank you for ping. I totally agree that the GA reviewing is one of those things where there is no substitute for time and experience, especially when we’re evaluating other reviewers reviews. In my opinion, Since @Crystalite13: has clearly got the drive and is acting in good faith, which is pleasure to see. But I think it makes sense for them to get a few more reviews under their belt before stepping into a full coordinator role. In fact, I also have only one GA in my contributions. Thank you ! Fade258 (talk) 02:27, 2 February 2026 (UTC)

I am not a coordinator, nor do I have any special authority here, so I'm not going to insist on a particular course of action. In my opinion Crystallite would make their own life a bit easier by stepping down as a coordinator for this drive, and focusing on doing reviews instead. But if the other coordinators are willing to check their work, perhaps it's less of a concern. Vanamonde93 (talk) 17:11, 2 February 2026 (UTC)

I have been waiting nearly a month for this to get reviewed. Are you going to get around to it? GamerPro64 14:41, 16 March 2026 (UTC)

Will be vacated. Crystalite13 (talk) 14:55, 16 March 2026 (UTC)