final five recommendations
Reposting an expanded version of what i posted in the Wikipedia quality discussion.
- Understanding of Verifiability, Neutral PoV & No Original Research
- Contribution to GA/FL/FA and/or GA/FL/FA rescue
- Collaborative works, can play nice with others editors and find compromise
- Knowledgeable in Wikipedia inner-process (Notice board, request protection, sock investigation, etc...)
- Understanding of the inherent Systemic Bias and its own personal biases
- Ability to admit its own mistakes and apologize
FA won't make you a senior editor as some FA makers showed lack of judgment and will to reach compromise. The English ArbCom know a few of them :p
Another concerning point is "senior editors" subtly trying to spread their wikipedia vision on new editors unaware that other visions exist. Can we trust a notable deletionist multi FA/FL/GA editor to offer neutral guidance to new editors?
Well i said already plenty enough about "senior editors" and how much i'm not uber fan of them due to their probable inability to live up to our expectations. Let's community try them but for my part i fear that out laziness and bureaucratic handling people will make the FA maker = "senior editor" shortcut in their minds.