Wikipedia talk:Good articles/GAN Backlog Drives/October 2020

Thoughts, comments, questions, concerns? Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 16:56, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

Question

So, say I claimed A GAN, but don't plan on starting on the review until tomorrow, which would be within the October time frame? Does it count for this drive? Not that it means anything to me personally, but if it counts, that'll be another GAN to claim the drive completed. Hog Farm _Bacon 17:15, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

@Hog Farm: Per Running total: "Reviews started before 1 October do not count" --MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 17:20, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

Hog Farm: I'm inclined to say that I think that would count, as long as you don't start reviewing it until tomorrow. In the same way as if you review something on 31 October but it isn't closed by the time the drive ends, as long as the reviewing takes place during the month I think it would count. At the end of the day the spirit of the rules is more important than the letter, and if it's clear you aren't intending to 'game the system', I think I speak for all the coords in saying that we're looking to be able to count things. It is, after all, just for a barnstar. I'd be curious to see what others think. Best, Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 17:25, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

No, burn the review and start another tomorrow! :P. Strictly speaking under the rules this isn't right - but it's not that big a deal, we want to reduce the backlog, so it would be foolish to ignore this on a technicality. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 17:49, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

Yeah, officially it's a no, but I recall that during my verification last time there were a couple like this, and I let them go. As Lee says, the focus is on getting reviews done, so as long as no one is taking the piss, I'd say it is fine. Harrias ^talk 18:39, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

Reviews by SurenGrig07

@Eddie891 and Lee Vilenski: Can I have a second opinion on the reviews by this user. So far, there are three, all "quick passes". A cursory glance over the articles in question show they are all in good shape and not far off GA status, but even quickly glancing through I found a few unreferenced statements in all three. My inclination is that this user could do with some guidance, but I'd prefer if someone else could take a look before we do anything. Harrias ^{(he/him) • talk} 14:34, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

I looked at Talk:Piccadilly line/GA1 earlier today and it's practically unreadable. I think you have to consider the position of an author who has waited several weeks or months for a review and is then presented with something like that. For example, the word "primarily" is used 14 times, there are no paragraphs and the sinebot was needed. That is not a good advert for what we are trying to achieve here. No Great Shaker (talk) 15:49, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

And, 15 instances of "within", 13 of "remain", eight of "particular". Usedtobecool ☎️ 02:21, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

Probably worth a talk page message. I think it's likely they don't know exactly what a good article review should look like. It's worth mentioning the candidate itself (the one above) isn't all that bad - there's a few points worth noting - so it's not like they are passing obvious fails. Might be worth coaching Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 16:44, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

I looked at Talk:St Mark's Campanile/GA1 and it reads like a review by someone who just glanced at the article and made cursory assumptions that there weren't any problems. For example, the article features several images but I don't see any evidence SurenGrig07 checked to see if licensing was correct. The article relies almost exclusively on books in Italian and I doubt SurenGruig07 bothered to check a single one of them. While I don't see any obvious problems with the article upon cursory inspection, this review is subpar, to my mind; more typical of how a review might have been done 15 years ago. Chris Troutman (talk) 17:06, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

Agree with most of the above, Seems to be a well-intentioned user who doesn't quite know how the GANR process works. I'd recommend some hand-holding here. They're also manually tagging articles as under review. Best, Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 17:19, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

They've recently cranked out a fourth. From a quick look, there's a number of reference formatting errors in there, one dubious thing based on interpretation of a web address redirecting, unnecessarily citations in the lead, and an irrelevant image. It's not that far off, but it's not at GA yet. Looks like they maybe need a bit of mentorship for awhile, but I'm seeing some potential here. Hog Farm _Bacon 18:52, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

Talk page notice left. I'm off to bed now; if no one catches it before, I will take a deeper look at each of the reviews, and most likely add them back into the queues for re-review, while reaching out to the nominators to explain the rationale. Actually, quickly, I'll ping the nominators here ahead of that: @Mccunicano, Venicescapes, Vincent60030, and Wasted Time R:. Harrias ^{(he/him) • talk} 21:02, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

The fourth review, Talk:Systime Computers/GA1, is definitely problematic: the edits they made to the article added a sentence to the lead that was far from clear and concise per the GA criteria, and changing "percent" to "%" was not appropriate per MOS:PERCENT. I think they need a great deal more experience editing Wikipedia in general and perhaps taking an article of their own to GAN before they'll be ready to do GA reviews. BlueMoonset (talk) 21:16, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

I was a bit surprised to see such a brief review of Aomori Prefecture. I've been working on making improvements to the article since it was reviewed (I nominated it when I was a bit less familiar with GAN), but I would appreciate feedback from a more experienced editor. I have nominated it for DYK, so I'm hoping it does not get demoted from GA. ⑉⑉Mccunicano☕️ 23:32, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

He is indeed well intentioned, but I wholeheartedly agree that the review was rather substandard for my nomination as well. Glad this was brought up, and am glad there were not too many issues at hand on my work. Vincent^LUFan (talk) (Kenton!) 23:46, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

I've been trying to figure out the review of my nomination as well as the others, and I think this person may have a mental model of the kind of review where one gives a yea or nay with their evaluation of the work, and a yea will be accompanied by suggestions for further improvements, but there is no back-and-forth loop with the author. That kind of review does exist in some kinds of publishing, but obviously it's not how GAN is supposed to work. Wasted Time R (talk) 00:18, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

I too was perplexed by the brevity of the review and certainly agree that a more in-depth review would be appropriate, the objective of GAN being to make improvements and maintain standards. Like @Mccunicano:, I also nominated the article for DYK; so please advise if the nomination should be withdrawn. Rather than adding the articles to the queue as Harrias proposes, I would ask some experienced reviewers to intervene. Certainly, it would be disheartening if the articles in question were to find themselves at the bottom of the queue with further months of waiting (the article on the campanile was nominated on 18 July).Venicescapes (talk) 08:02, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

Mccunicano, I'll put a note on your DYK nomination that will keep it on hold until the re-review is completed; you don't need to worry about the DYK being closed prematurely. BlueMoonset (talk) 14:47, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

BlueMoonset, could you please do the same for the DYK nomination of St Mark's Campanile? Thank you.Venicescapes (talk) 15:33, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

Venicescapes: done. I did find a couple of corrections needed in the article when looking through the reviewer's work, so when the review starts up anew, I'll be sure to mention them if the new reviewer doesn't. BlueMoonset (talk) 23:08, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

If the four articles are to be re-queued, I think they should be given top priority for review. I'll be happy to pick one up but with no particular preference so will let other reviewers have first choice if they wish. I think Wasted Time R made a very good point above that those reviews were done without any thought of interaction with the authors. That used to be the norm in publishing – the appointed reviewer was the Oracle whose word was final. GAR does follow the modern professional approach whereby all points are itemised and discussed. No Great Shaker (talk) 10:47, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

I'll follow and volunteer to pick up whatever NGS doesn't review. Kingsif (talk) 00:00, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

Suggestion

@Harrias, Eddie891, and Lee Vilenski: I think, in fairness to Venicescapes, Mccunicano, Wasted Time R and Vincent60030 that we should let the GA status stand so that they can pursue DYK. To ensure that the articles are up to the required standard, however, we should use WP:GAR and reassess them, but this should be done as a priority. If all are agreed, I'll propose the four articles at GAR and then we just need a couple more volunteers to help Kingsif and myself. Any thoughts on that as a solution? Thanks. No Great Shaker (talk) 08:54, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

Yes please. I am strongly in favour of this. The DYK meanwhile can be put on hold even if I submitted it so no worries from me. Thank you very much for all the help! Vincent^LUFan (talk) (Kenton!) 09:08, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

I concur that this is the best of the possible solutions and thank all of those who are willing to contribute their time and expertise in reassessing the four articles.Venicescapes (talk) 09:28, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

That's fine with me. Note that my article was already a DYK so that's not an issue in my case. Wasted Time R (talk) 10:22, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

Sure, but note that an active GAR would almost certainly block a DYK anyway, so it's six of one and half a dozen of the other really. Harrias ^{(he/him) • talk} 11:53, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

Good point. I still think GA status should stand, though, having been granted so should we delay GAR for the DYK cases until DYK ends. Are all four articles up for DYK? No Great Shaker (talk) 11:57, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

I'm of the view that a new GAN is quicker than a GAR; as both would stop a DYK. Whichever is fine. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 12:05, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

Oh dear I hope the GAR/GAN isn’t delayed too much as I’m aiming for a Dec 15 DYK :o Vincent^LUFan (talk) (Kenton!) 13:59, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

I'd agree that a GAN would be faster than a GAR, but it doesn't really matter to me... Whatever works best for y'all. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 18:29, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

If the GAN is faster, that would be fine as well.Venicescapes (talk) 19:16, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

I second Venicescapes' comment above in regards to the article I nominated. ⑉⑉Mccunicano☕️ 00:22, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

Two of the articles were nominated at DYK and have already been put on hold, following similar procedures when this situation has occurred before. If the articles were to go to GAR, then they'll remain on hold at DYK, and GAR, especially community ones, can be interminable. When we've had past novice reviewers give unwarranted passes, we've unwound the passes and reopened the reviews for a new reviewer to take over. It would be easy enough to have No Great Shaker and Kingsif (and whoever else) take up the task of reviewing from scratch, perhaps starting with the first two that were nominated at DYK, Talk:Aomori Prefecture/GA1 and Template:Did you know nominations/St Mark's Campanile. (I did notice a few issues when checking the reviewer's work, so I'll be happy to stop by once the Campanile review is restarted and add my mite.) For Talk:Piccadilly line/GA1, Vincent60030 has noted that they want it to run at DYK on December 15, Piccadilly line's anniversary, but DYK has a six-week-in-advance limit on special occasion hooks, so it might be desirable to just put this one back in the pool of unreviewed nominations and hope no one grabs it until early November... BlueMoonset (talk) 05:17, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

To also add, I am also planning to bring the article to FA status, but I think it won't make it in time before December. Vincent^LUFan (talk) (Kenton!) 05:23, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

Replaced in GAN queue

I have just manually reverted the talk pages, so the articles should appear back in the GAN queue. For those who kindly offered their reviewing services (@No Great Shaker and Kingsif:), the review links are at: Talk:Aomori Prefecture, Talk:St Mark's Campanile, Talk:Piccadilly line, Talk:Systime Computers. Hopefully we can get these worked through quickly. Harrias ^{(he/him) • talk} 05:19, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

Thanks, everyone. I've started on St Mark's Campanile and hope to have some feedback soon. No Great Shaker (talk) 07:28, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

Feel free to do Piccadilly line last or around end October to early November :D Vincent^LUFan (talk) (Kenton!) 13:35, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

It is now the end of October. Courtesy pinging @No Great Shaker and Kingsif: as potential reviewers. :D Thank you lots, much love Vincent^LUFan (talk) (Kenton!) 07:18, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

2nd opinion

How can I mark an article I requested for 2nd opinion?  Saha ❯❯❯ Stay safe  13:10, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

Saha, do you mean on the backlog page, or in general? (Which article is it?) If for the backlog page, I'd just leave it with the previous status, whether on review or on hold—either way, it's a review in process and yet to be completed. If you haven't added it yet, then hold off until it's either back to on review or on hold before adding it. You don't need to be specific about where it stands right now; it only matters when you pass or fail the nomination. BlueMoonset (talk) 03:30, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

BlueMoonset, in the backlog drive page. Actually, I'm mentally/physically unwell (tested positive for covid), so unable to concentrate/complete the reviews. I have marked them as {{icon|GAH}}  Saha ❯❯❯ Stay safe  10:52, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

Would like a second opinion on the Quick Fail of a GA nom

See Talk:DeFord Bailey/GA1. The reviewer is participating in this Backlog Drive, one of the parameters of the drive is the following:

"quick-fails" are allowed, only if the article is in exceptionally bad shape.

Is the article is exceptionally bad shape? I don't think so, but maybe I'm wrong. The article was rated as a "C" in years past and has been improved since then. Since the original reviewer's QuickFail, I have now put it up for a GAN a second time. Would appreciate additional eyes/thoughts/whatever on the original nom page. Thanks, Shearonink (talk) 18:00, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

I'd have some comments there, but personally, I don't think it was quite to the quickfail point, although I can't say that my opinions are universal. Hog Farm _Bacon 18:20, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

I agree, the reviewed version wasn't in great shape, but nothing that couldn't be worked on in a week, which should be the general measure for quickfails IMO. Kingsif (talk) 19:48, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

Courtesy @Kyle Peake:. Sorry I do feel this is too harsh. Cites are allowed in the lead and broadness is not covered by how many sections there are. I do agree a bit on the lead, but it is not really that far off being an acceptable length. As an aside I feel in general Kyle goes into far too much detail on minor issues not necessary for GA compliance (see Talk:Machine Head (album)/GA1 for an example). Some nominators like this and I have no problem with reviewers bringing them up, but in the end the article passing or failing should just be based on the criteria. AIRcorn (talk) 22:43, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

Thanks Aircorn for pinging KP - I should have done that at the beginning. Apologies - Shearonink (talk) 23:56, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

Shearonink I apologise for the quick fail, it should not have been done and I believe that the album can be reviewed by another user. Also Aircorn, that statement you said about me is false if you like through most of my more recent reviews; do you agree here? --K. Peake 05:55, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

What statement? Happy to strike it if it is. I just recognised your name from another review I came across. If you have eased up your reviewing style that is great. There is nothing wrong with being thorough, but GA is not FA for good reason. AIRcorn (talk) 07:27, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

Aircorn I was referring to the statement you made about my Machine Head review; if you take a brief look through recent reviews, I have clearly become less fussy. --K. Peake 11:40, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

Okay. Glad to hear it. AIRcorn (talk) 18:01, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

Yes, someone else should do any further GAN review of DeFord Bailey.

I see that your Quick Fail of the GAN for Deford Bailey - who, by the way, was a man not a record album - has been struck from your Review Totals at Wikipedia:WikiProject Good articles/GAN Backlog Drives/October 2020 and no credit for this particular review is now given towards the GAN Backlog Awards. That is satisfactory. Shearonink (talk) 06:15, 24 October 2020 (UTC)