Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Good articles/Project quality task force/Sweeps/Running total

Oooh

Oooh, much easier to edit now! T Rex | talk 02:38, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. That's what I was going for. It was such a pain in the ass to update the backlog elimination drive totals, and it occurred to me today that separate headings would be much easier... as would a page just for this. I'm a thinker! :P Lara❤Love 03:16, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Additionally, that page would have gotten really long if ever complete reviewing all ~3,000 of the GAs. --Nehrams2020 05:39, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

# of participants

I know we talked about this very often. Can we get more trusted reviewers? After Johnfros quitted and AshLin got called away from real life issues, that brings down to 9 reviewers. Any thoughts of inviting someone in particular? OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 23:14, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I invited Wrad today. I'm looking through reviews for some others. Lara❤Love 00:57, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Have you invited Awadewit? Also, what is this page for, do you list the status of every article you sweep over? Wrad 18:21, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Awadewit declined the invitation as he's over-extended as it is. He may join at a later time. And yes, this page is to track what articles have been reviewed. Lara❤Love 19:13, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to recommend inviting EyeSerene, Blnguyen, Jayron32, Teemu08, David Fuchs, TimVickers and LordHarris, if not done already. Epbr123 13:43, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

All invited. I think there should be a couple more that participated in the GAC backlog elimination drive and should be invited. I'll invite them in a day or two. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 15:43, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I invited two more, they are Thedagomar‎ and Corvus coronoides‎ OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 15:56, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Request

I would like to request everyone to sweep according to categories, not just selecting articles randomly from the list from GA page. The reason is that when we complete, we need go back to categories that each of us reviewed and check against any articles promoted after the Sweeps started. (We're not checking any articles promoted after Sweeps initated, only follow this stablizied version. We will check the new ones when all articles in the stablized version are reviewed.) OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 01:07, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cmt: COI

One thing: What do I do about reviewing GAs which I have had a substantial hand in/submitted for GAC? (Ex: Defense of the Ancients) Just skip them? David Fuchs^(talk) 00:49, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yea, would probably be the best thing. Same rules as a regular review. T Rex | talk 01:03, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Alrightly then. Besides, if I wrote them, then of course they must be GA class :P David Fuchs^(talk) 01:08, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just find someone in the Sweep, not just any GA reviewer, leave a message in that person's talk page. Explain in detail and ask nicely if that person can review it for you. See this request as example. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 02:52, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Notifying Wikiprojects

Should we be notifying the affiliated wikiprojects when we place articles on hold? I'm wondering because there was one article that I placed on hold because it had a "fact" tag, but after seven days no change had occurred so I just spent the time researching it myself and fixing the problem, but I'd rather not have to do that. Corvus coronoides _talk 14:43, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's not required, but you can certainly do it. Lara❤Love 14:54, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've just started recently leaving messages on the talk pages of the WikiProjects and also the top five or so editors who have contributed to the article in the past using WikiDashboard. Just type in the article name and it will show how many edits people have made to the article. Although this isn't always a good indicator that that person was actually contributing to the article or just reverting vandalism, it does increase the likelihood that more people will work to fix the page. --Nehrams2020 21:18, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This tool here is also useful for getting page contributor data. It gives more info than the dashboard, and seems to be more up-to-date. EyeSerene^TALK 20:25, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Divided headings

I divided up everybody's reviews based on if they were currently in GAR/on hold, passes, and delists for easier viewing. This will make it easier to count the number of articles that have been delisted so far. I also put everyone's running total in the heading, so it is also easier to count. If anyone disagrees with the new format, let me know here if you want to revert. If anyone is interested, we can also keep running totals of the passes/delists to make it easier to count down the line once we have hundreds of articles/thousands of articles assessed. --Nehrams2020 00:54, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This does make updating the page slightly more onerous, but I think it will pay off as the article numbers grow. Nice job, thank you. EyeSerene^TALK 19:56, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Can we even include the # of articles under each heading (i.e. keep, delist, GAR)? It will help me doing statistical analysis. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 17:53, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think that is a good idea, and it would be good to start it now before the list gets any longer. Editors are going to have to remember to update the individual section and the main one overall as well. --Nehrams2020 04:04, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Charts

I finally updated these, sorry for taking so long. I should be more proactive on updating them this summer. Keep up the good work everybody, we're almost a quarter of the way done! --Nehrams2020 (talk) 06:07, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Updates

I have finished my reviews, and excluding the exempt articles, I have reviewed approximately 10% of the total. I'm not unfortunately going to do any more reviews (although there is always the possibility of doing more in the future). I enjoy doing the reviews (even though I did have my share of both happy and unhappy customers!) but I need to use more of my WikiTime (is that a word?) for working on GAs of my own, returning to reviewing GANs, and increasing my Films WikiProject involvement. I will still be updating the monthly totals along with the various charts. I hope everyone keeps up the good work and we continue to make good progress. If any new editors need help with a review or have other questions, let me know on my talk page and I'll get back to you as soon as I can. Happy editing! --Nehrams2020 (talk) 06:56, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there

Hi there - thanks for the message. I've tried to do a little bit to help the United Kingdom article but confess to be quite ignorant of what all is required to achieve GA status. I do realise that citations are required so I plan to try to add some when I can. Cheers Fishiehelper2 (talk) 22:48, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

User:H1nkles

There's a problem with User:H1nkles. He has three articles on review and he hasn't edited since October 13. Any suggestions? GamerPro64 (talk) 05:09, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The end is in sight!

Only 28 articles still needing reviews. There's even an outside chance that Sweeps could be finished by the end of this month! Deep joy. --Malleus Fatuorum 18:54, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

While I don't want to be back-patting while there's lots of work to be done, a special thanks to Junipers Liege for popping in this last month and helping out. Back to the reviewing, now. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 21:13, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, it's almost scary how quickly all of these reviews are going (maybe those spam messages actually work!), but I guess when we see that we're towards the end, it's much more motivating to review. I'll try and get in a few more reviews done today, but good job to everyone who has pitched in this month (of course, as well as in the long run!). I believe that at our current rate we can get this all completed by the end of the month and then I'll only send out one last spam message with stats and thanks. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 23:02, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There seems to be a reluctance to do the more technical biology-related reviews, a reluctance I certainly share; I have only the vaguest idea of what criteria to hold those articles up against. Maybe we could try to recruit reviewers in the relevant projects, or approach reviewers who have shown proficiency here previously? Lampman (talk) 12:43, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comment, Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs. It was my pleasure.... I am in awe at this entire project, really (given Wiki's tendency for such tasks to die out) - just goes to show that with the right people behind it, big things on Wiki can be achieved. Happy to add my small contribution - coming at a time when there was probably quite a bit of burn-out; the final length is often the hardest to run. Congrats to all! ✽ Juniper§ Liege ^(TALK) 10:46, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Updates: 2 articles left

I went through our running total list and cross-referenced it with the original worklist and fixed some of the discrepancies, so you may have seen your count go up or down. Unfortunately, I found two articles that were not reviewed: Condoleezza Rice and Terri Schiavo. I would review them, but I'm continuing to work on compiling the data so I would appreciate it if somebody else can review them this weekend (I don't want to send out spam message to all fifty members saying they only have to review .04 of an article). Altogether, that's quite amazing that after thousands of edit, several years, multiple editors, and various name-changes/deletions, we only missed two articles. Let's get them done quickly so we can completely finish this. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 00:01, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]