Wikipedia talk:Good articles/GAN Backlog Drives/December 2011

I would suggest basing it loosely on the

Good ideas! What special award for new reviewers do you suggest? ...or would you like to create one? ;-) AstroCog (talk) 02:09, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

At present the elimination drive ends on 31 December but reviews started before 31 January are eligible. This does not make sense, if it end in December why submit articles in January.Jim Sweeney (talk) 06:53, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It was suggested that the drive be two months, and I put those dates in. Somebody didn't like that and changed it back to one month in the introduction but missed the later dates. It's fixed now. AstroCog (talk) 12:19, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

OK is there anywhere to sign up? Jim Sweeney (talk) 19:58, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'd still suggest more than a month, in a serious bid to reduce the backlog and actually try keep it down for a longer period, rather than just see it bounce to current levels. Brad78 (talk) 22:10, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

We could just do a month and perhaps an extra week or two. Two is probably overkill but it should do a bit longer just to keep it from skyrocketing back up. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 02:42, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think we should use the drive to keep the backlog down, other less intensive mechanisms could do that. Looking at the last two drives most of the backlog reduction occurred within the first two weeks and then it tailed off. File:2011 GAN drive.png File:GanDrive.png Instead of extending yearly drives a better scenario would be to hold week long drives more regularly. Not sure if that is feasible though. AIRcorn (talk) 04:09, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As the one volunteering to coordinate this drive, I'm just going to make an executive decision here - let's just do one month. We'll start on Dec 1 and end on Dec 31. Let's keep it simple. If it's successful, let's say our criteria for success is a 50% reduction in the backlog, then let's have a drive every 4 months (3 times a year). Keeping the long-term backlog down is a separate discussion with many possible solutions - a discussion we should have - but let's keep it separate from this short-term drive. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Astrocog (talk • contribs) 10:31, 12 November 2011

You don't want to have too long backlog drives or too many in a year (I think two/year is OK) because then people will start to lose interest over time.

You may also want to keep in mind that we may not get as many GANs done as, say, in April because December is a huge holiday month in which quite a few people will be away celebrating the holidays. 50% of the current backlog IMO is sort of reasonable; I wouldn't expect us to go below 100 or even 50 total nominations, given the result from March's drive. –MuZemike 05:43, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

On the project page the mark up is as follows

1. John Doe
2. 
   Jane Doe
3. John Smith

Should we have another symbol for articles on review ?

1. 
   Jane Doe

Jim Sweeney (talk) 19:02, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I would say no, as once problems are noted, it should be placed on hold, rather than remain under review. Most reviewers seem not to do this, and maybe this will help them do that more. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 20:46, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Good point and guilty of it myself at times. Jim Sweeney (talk) 20:51, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Use of the GAH icon

Now that the drive has started, I've noted that participants have been adding the GAH icon to the list, even if the article is not on hold yet. To help the co-coordinators out, please only add to your participation table when the review is finished. Cheers, AstroCog (talk) 17:44, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I was guilty of that (I've removed the icons). I'm accustomed to the Copy Editors backlog drives: in those you put the article on the drive page when you begin working on it. --Noleander (talk) 19:21, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I removed about 15 that were not on hold; on a couple the review hadn't started. I'm surprised that this is actually an issue this time around, but I guess I'll have to keep my eyes open. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 19:33, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm a little surprised, too. However, I'm IMPRESSED by the participation turnout today. AstroCog (talk) 19:35, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Is anyone here good at making templates? I'd like to have a template for the backlog drive to place at the top of the GAN page. I want it to be a conspicuous announcement for anybody arriving at the GAN page. It will say what the start & end date of the drive is, as well as give the % of backlog completed. Maybe even include the top three reviewers. Anyone willing to hammer that out? AstroCog (talk) 15:04, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What kind, like a message box or what? ~~Ebe123~~ → report on my contribs. 16:55, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not just a message box, but a banner that can be placed at the top of the GAN page with the above mentioned stats. If it's a template, it's something that can be re-used with different parameters for future drives, preferably with stats that update automatically. AstroCog (talk) 18:03, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Why is there no link to the page containing the new entries that needs review? --Philcha (talk) 22:52, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What are you talking about? AstroCog (talk) 23:14, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You've given no link that I can't see. --Philcha (talk) 00:22, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think he means which nominations? The newest GA nominations? –MuZemike 00:25, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is the talk page for the project. If you want the project page, click

GAN page. Cheers, AstroCog (talk) 00:32, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply

]

Contact me on my talk page if you have questions or issues and I'll try to respond in a timely manner. Cheers, AstroCog (talk) 15:14, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Andrew Chan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Myuran Sukumaran (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Renae Lawrence (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Martin Stephens (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Tan Duc Thanh Nguyen (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Michael Czugaj (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Scott Rush (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Matthew Norman (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

are the next articles in the GAN Queue for LAW and all have been nominated for deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Andrew Chan. In my opinion these nominations should await the outcome of that discussion. Jezhotwells (talk) 15:05, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, but that AfD was dead on arrival. No chance those articles won't be kept. Resolute 15:19, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed as well that reviewers might want to wait on these. However, Resolute is also correct that after five days, this AfD appears DOA. Dana boomer (talk) 15:24, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As far as GANs are concerned, however, I forsee some significant issues, especially regarding

WP:BLP issues here after taking a quick spot-check at them. Not to mention the tone isn't very encyclopedic but rather more sensationalist. –MuZemike 16:11, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply

]

The AfD has been closed as keep. Jezhotwells (talk) 14:08, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Folks, I just wanted to chime here and say how pleased I am with the initial turnout of reviews. You've made a significant dent in the backlog already. Keep it up! Cheers, AstroCog (talk) 04:11, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Day 9 of the drive and we've eliminated nearly 150 nominations from the un-reviewed backlog. There's still three weeks left! I see that we seem to have plateaued a bit in the last couple days, but we can always pick it up. Pop-culture people need to bring it! Those military history buffs are wiping the floor with everyone else. ;-) AstroCog (talk) 02:33, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

With my history of GAs, how can I participate in this drive? Please let me know as it would help to clear this back log. — Legolas ^(talk2me) 05:55, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Just go to the

Wikipedia:WikiProject Good articles/GAN backlog elimination drives/December 2011. --Noleander (talk) 05:57, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply

]

The pink box at the top of

peacockery

and sensationalism, and free of ongoing edit wars and/or content disputes.

WP:GACR#1. –MuZemike 06:54, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply

]

Hey everyone, I've added an announcement about this drive at the Community portal. Please feel free to edit it if it can be improved. --Cerebellum (talk) 18:03, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

While most of the GA nominations are now currently being reviewed, on the last few days of this backlog drive, we need to focus on wrapping them up if they have been under review or placed on hold. This is what we're looking at:

02:00, 29 December 2011 (UTC) – 173 nominations outstanding; 88 not reviewed; x 46; x 37; x 2

Nearly half the outstanding GA nominations are either on review or on hold. Moreover, there may also be GA reviews that have been abandoned, which other reviewers will need to pick up. While the number of unreviewed nominations are down, we also need to get the number of outstanding nominations down.

Obviously, if you are just putting GA nominations on hold pending improvements, keep them on hold for the standard length of time, even after the backlog drive ends. --MuZemike 20:43, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Congrats to all who participated in this drive:

Figures as of now. Jezhotwells (talk) 17:56, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes also offer my congratulations, does anyone have any numbers for a normal month GA passes failed on hold etc? Jim Sweeney (talk) 22:13, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Try checking

User:GA bot OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 05:50, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply

]

Or more specicically try Wikipedia:Good article nominations/Report/Backlog archive but further detail may not be available, beyond that at Wikipedia:Good article statistics. Jezhotwells (talk) 02:00, 18 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'd be happy to go through and count the number of reviews (ignoring suspect/trivial ones?) and pass-out the awards. Or is someone already doing that? --Noleander (talk) 16:29, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am currently going through each of the participants' reviews and spot-checking them. I'm tagging some reviews for 2nd opinions and you're welcome to check those out (they are marked in the drive page). It's slow going, and if you'd like to help out, that's fine. I'm just looking at the articles and comparing them to the GA review. Drive-by reviews or inadequate reviews are tagged. After I finish looking at the reviews for a participant, I mark them as "done" (see the participant list). Some are marked as "in progress", either because I'm looking at them currently, or the review is still pending. Cheers, AstroCog (talk) 17:11, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. Maybe I'll start at the bottom and go up. --Noleander (talk) 17:14, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Astrocog: I'm checking every single article, but it is slow going. The CopyEdit drives only do spot checks of about 1 out of 10 articles. The concept being that editors are on the honor system; and the only thing at stake is an award. If an editor were gaming the system and improperly promoting articles to GA status, they would get caught soon enough. Just thinking out loud. --Noleander (talk) 13:46, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm spot checking every participant, but not thoroughly re-reviewing each of their reviews. The participants for which a problematic review appears, I look at the rest more carefully. Some of the participants, especially the Mil Hist reviewers, have obviously good reviews and I look at a few for a spot and I don't worry about the rest. You can do the same. I've been slow this week, because I'm a professor and school just started. But I'll still be plugging away at it. Cheers, AstroCog (talk) 03:25, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, that is consistent with my inclination. --Noleander (talk) 03:34, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It is coming up on a month since the end of the drive, and I've done some spot checks, but it looks like everyone is just running out of steam on the checks. Maybe someone should just hand out the awards now? Some folks worked really hard doing GA reviews, and I'm sure some of them did so with the expectation that they'd get a barnstar or ribbon. [Disclaimer: I reviewed two articles, the bare minimum for an award]. --Noleander (talk) 19:04, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm nearly finished with the spot checks, but could use somebody to look at the ones that I've tagged for 2nd opinions. Also, it would be nice is somebody could check my reviews...just to be independent. AstroCog (talk) 16:57, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've started giving out awards. AstroCog (talk) 21:30, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Great! I'm looking forward to getting one. (I hope) MathewTownsend (talk) 22:00, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ditto! (I hope). Ruby 2010/2013 05:54, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have awarded barnstars and medals to everyone, except those users whose reviews were flagged during spotchecks. I would appreciate someone (or several people) just going through the ones I flagged and provide a second opinion, either by sending the article to

Additionally, I didn't spotcheck my own reviews and didn't award a barnstar to myself. I didn't think that would be appropriate, as a the drive coordinator. I'd appreciate if someone did that for me ;-) Cheers, AstroCog (talk) 22:58, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It can be hard to determine if a short review means the reviewer has not done their job properly. Sometimes an article is so good there is nothing, or very little, needed to get it up to GA standard. Even editors that always leave small reviews might do so because they only choose to review articles that are already at the required standard or fix many of the problems themselves during the review. The standard is not really that high and many reviewers make suggestions that, although good, are not strictly required. The most important thing is to make sure that no articles that are obviously not GA quality get through. Of the ones you flagged I would say ODB++ is the only one that fits this. I do not know enough about the subject to provide a decent rational (the structure, prose, flow and breadth just doesn't look right).

I looked at a couple of your reviews and they looked good. Don't do barnstars, but will thank you here for the work you have put into this. AIRcorn (talk) 23:34, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I checked all of Asrocog's reviews. MathewTownsend (talk) 16:18, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That's pretty much all I wanted was someone to double check the articles. Some of them did look fine, but you have to agree that a one or two sentence GA review is a red flag. I'll look at

WP:GAR possibly. Cheers, AstroCog (talk) 13:23, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply

]

I've given out the last of the awards, to the users who I flagged for 2nd opinions. Cheers, AstroCog (talk) 00:03, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I hate to seem like I'm asking for one, but I seem to have been overlooked. :( GRAPPLE X 02:37, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oh my! I even doubled-checked. Regardless, it's taken care of ;-) Cheers, AstroCog (talk) 03:34, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]