I also try to give words of encouragement to those I see making significant contributions to Wikipedia.
My philosophy around reviewing GA nominations: in the vast majority of cases, the editor has worked hard at improving or expanding the article. What they really need is some pointers to improve the article to get it up to standard, and I will go out of my way towards collaborating with them to improve the article. In fact, I have been known to purchase the odd book to help improve or clarify references, and I don't fear going in and helping with a copyedit every now and again. Basically, I am on the side of any editor who shows they want to improve an article in good faith.
I'm currently taking a wikibreak... well sort of a wikibreak, but doing some wikignoming. I'm fixing references:
pass 1: go through the A articles, find any false positives, remove them - done
pass 2: go through the A articles, find any articles with only one problem reference, fix them - up to AG
pass 3: go through any short A articles, fix them
pass 4: go through the A articles, find ones with only a few references with issues
pass 5: find all the massive A articles, fix them
The process
Find the orphaned ref
check to see if citation template is correct
check if Harvard short cite template is correct
check early history to see if the source can be recovered
often times, this is not possible. In this case, do binary search for when it was added. When located, if no source:
Sylvia Rose Ashby (1908-1978) noted market researcher
Ada Winifred Weekes Baker (1866–1949) teacher of singing
