Wikipedia talk:Good articles/GAN Backlog Drives/February-March 2009

I guess...

...it would be a bit dishonest to hold any GAC reviews we currently have pending until Feb. 13 and then pass it then, right? lol --Hunter Kahn (talk) 01:46, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Heh. No, that wouldn't really work. -Drilnoth (talk) 01:51, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cumulative?

It had to be asked: If you review, let's say, 10 articles, do you then receive two awards? --Eustress (talk) 02:25, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Eh... probably not. It would be kind of redundant. The awards are also ordered to be in the approximate order of value, but if someone wanted a lower reward than the one that they would normally received, I'd be fully open to that. -Drilnoth (talk) 02:33, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds fine. I'd just be sure to clarify that up-front on the page somewhere. --Eustress (talk) 02:49, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Done -Drilnoth (talk) 02:55, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Second opinion question

If somebody asks for a second opinion, how does that affect your running total? This hasn't happened to me yet, but I was curious about it. For example, if I fail an article, but then a second opinion is requested and somebody else passes it (or vice versa), do I still get to include my fail/pass in my running total? Or is that one disqualified? --Hunter Kahn (talk) 01:06, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think that second opinions are requested and done before the nomination is passed or failed by the original reviewer, so it wouldn't have any bearing on these stats. -Drilnoth (talk) 02:50, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Updated the table code

I've updated the table code to make it easier to update. Also, I've changed it to compare the values for unreviewed nominations only, as if an article is on hold, it shouldn't count towards the value since we shouldn't rush reviews, only encourage them. If an article has no reviewer, that's worse than having an article on hold, because at least it has a reviewer. I've also added instructions on how to update the table in an inline comment; it should be easy enough to understand. The sixth, or last, column is the same value from the previous row's fifth, or second-last, column, since it's used to compare today's progress. Gary King (talk) 19:17, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In addition, it might make more sense to reverse the order of the dates, starting from the most recent, as while the list gets longer, it gets more tedious to have to scroll down to see the latest results. Gary King (talk) 20:01, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree; logically, since the number of outstanding nominations is declining, and the green arrows are pointing downwards, the table should reflect this descent. Punkmorten (talk) 09:42, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I also disagree that the table should be switched; keeping the earlist record first seems more logical, and shouldn't cause much trouble. By the way, excellent work on the template coding! -Drilnoth (talk) 14:33, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Eligibility question

Do I need to be a member of the Good articles Project to participate in this event? Vantine84 (talk) 12:17, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No. According to the page, the drive was "originally organized by the GAN wikiproject and other users" (my emphasize). Make sure that you're familiar with the Good article rules and process, that's all. Punkmorten (talk) 13:36, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What Punkmorten said. :) -Drilnoth (talk) 14:34, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There wasn't any eligibility (other than not being an IP user) from the beginning. We're not electing stewards or similar. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 17:26, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why would being an IP matter? Anyone can be a good reviewer... just because someone hasn't created an account doesn't mean that they can't help. -Drilnoth (talk) 02:46, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

IP user's can't review because it says in the GA review instructions that they can't. Check the first green box on the GAN page, it says "Articles can be nominated by anyone, and reviewed by any registered user..." (bolding in the original). Dana boomer (talk) 02:49, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OK, so someone editor sometime put that in. That doesn't mean its set in stone. Why not change it. To echo the above "why would being an IP matter?" Noble Story (talk • contributions) 11:36, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Because it makes it easier for there to be a COI by unscrupulous editors to nominate an article, log out, and review their own article with no one being the wiser, would be my first reason, and I'm sure I could think of more if I thought about it for a while or searched through various archives. Besides, an editor cannot just randomly, unilaterally put stuff into the GA criteria, so at the point when this was placed on the GAN page, it was the consensus of the community. However, this is not the place to discuss this. If this is something that any editors want changed I would suggest they make a suggestion on the GAN talk page. Dana boomer (talk) 12:51, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reward structure

Just from a behavioral point of view, there should not be such a jump between 10 for The Tireless Contributor Barnstar and 25 for GA medal of merit. Many will stop at 10 because it will take another 15 (big jump) to earn another medal. A medal in between may inspire those to continue beyond 10 who know they will never make it to 25. —Mattisse (Talk) 03:35, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Eh, I don't think it matters. Since there are over twenty-five users participating, if each person reviews ten nominations, that in itself makes a big difference. There's also the fact that the drive is already half way completed; there's no reason to change the rewards and/or guidelines this late in the game. María (habla conmigo) 03:42, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OK. The current drive has reduced the backlog significantly. Maybe for future drives, something to consider. —Mattisse (Talk) 03:46, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If wanted, I could see reducing the third award to 20 reviews and the fourth to 30 reviews, although I'm not sure if it's really needed. -Drilnoth (talk) 19:57, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would agree with the 5-10-20-30 structure, or even a 5-10-20-40, rather than the 5-10-25-50 structure. I think like Mattisse is right that it would inspire people to continue beyond a point they might not have before, both after 10 reviews and after 25 reviews. For example, I myself was going to go for 50, but am beginning to doubt whether I have it in me, but if it were 40 instead of 50 I know I'd keep pushing for it. --Hunter Kahn (talk) 01:53, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Done, changing to 5–10–20–40. -Drilnoth (talk) 15:47, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's still 25 on the page right now. I figure it's just an oversight, but I didn't want to presume and fix it myself. --Hunter Kahn (talk) 00:13, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Changed it to 20 for you. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 00:33, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

D'oh! Thanks. -Drilnoth (talk) 03:02, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Userbox?

Is anyone going to make a userbox that says something like "I participated in the Spring 2009 GAn backlog elimination drive" or something like that? I think it would be a cool idea, but I don't know how to make userboxes myself, and even if I did I'd probably just make a crappy one... --Hunter Kahn (talk) 01:54, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Great idea! I'll make one up once the drive is closer to ending and I'll mention it to everyone when I pass out the barnstars. -Drilnoth (talk) 15:46, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe you could make boxes for previous drives too - rst20xx (talk) 13:56, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It seems kind of silly at this point, but if anyone would like one I'll just customize the single userbox so that it's text can be changed using a parameter. -Drilnoth (talk) 15:26, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Partial credit for quick fails?

I am thinking there should be some partial credit for quick fails, like 3 counts as one article. I get the feeling that some nominees are not being reviewed because reviewers are avoiding ones that they suspect will be quick failed. I took on the Rod Blagojevich corruption charges article that had been sitting for 3 weeks, and (surprise!) quick failed it for being a rapidly developing current event. Diderot's dreams (talk) 15:39, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No credits will be given, see here for rationale. Giving quick-fail credits is inviting people to abuse the guidelines instead of doing minor improvements to the article (such as adding missing non-free image rationale and not use the "easy way out" by quick-fail it) OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 16:14, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I searched for "quick fail" on the page, and couldn't find the term. Can you point out where this idea was discussed on that page? As to your point made here, that is certainly a concern. I had thought of it, in fact, and so I though that reward should be given in proportion of effort required, hence the 1/3 credit. Perhaps 1/3 credit is too high (for me, who is unfamiliar with all the administrative work it is not so unreasonable), but once set at an equitable level, there would be no advantage to quick failing or full reviewing. And this way we would get some of the reviews no one is choosing done, IMO. Diderot's dreams (talk) 19:39, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Quick-fail only gives you a sense of the overall article. The goal of GA is "intended to help editors with article improvement, "quick-failing" may not be the best option". Some of the quick-fails include missing fair-use rationale and various tags (POV, cleanup, clarify, current events) which doesn't require you to read the entire article. I don't want to see someone quick-fail 15 articles and get "The Working Man's Barnstar" (assuming the 1/3 credit) because you don't need to spend a lot of work comparing to others which worked very hard to review 5 articles. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 21:09, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I see benefits for both of your arguements, although at this point it might make sense to leave it as-is since we're already halfway done. -Drilnoth (talk) 22:00, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I see the benefit in the restriction too; I'd wondered whether if I should include "Norton Internet Security" or not. –Whitehorse1 23:43, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've been going through some of the reviews to check them, and I had a question. WHen the instructions said that no credit will be given for quick-fails, can I assume this means true quick-fails (ie. failed without a review because of major issues such as complete lack of references, presence of cleanup banners, etc.) and not fails without a hold period (ie. a detailed review, after which the reviewer concludes that there is too much that needs to be done and that one week is insufficient to bring the article up to GA standards and thus fails the nomination)? GaryColemanFan (talk) 17:40, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about the delayed response! Thanks for helping with some of these... I hope to go through the rest of them in the next few days, but all help is much appreciated (I'd be really grateful if you could check my reviews; I can't really check them myself. :) ). Anyway, I'd define a "quick fail" as a fail where the reviwer didn't seem to have read the whole article, so basically what you said. A "fail" where the reviewer reads the whole article and considers its quality and what it could become if put on hold is still counted... it's just a "fail", not a "quick fail". –Drilnoth (T • C) 02:20, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Just wanted to say "Thanks" to everyone who participated in the GA backlog elimination drive. As an editor who spends a lot of time trying to get articles to GA (often because available information on the subject prohibits promotion to FA) the backlog was becoming exceedingly frustrating because I just couldn't keep the library materials out long enough to finish article improvements and wait for a GA review so I could address concerns from those materials. You folks have done a great service to Wikipedia, and have provided me with the necessary motivation to continue writing GAs. Acdixon ^{(talk • contribs • count)} 16:23, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! That backlog was starting to get out of control... it still isn't like it should be, but if there's a drive like this another two times this year or so, with this much participation, I think that it can be pretty much emptied! –Drilnoth (T • C) 16:26, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]