Wikipedia:Good article nominations/Future of GAN Backlog Elimination Drives

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Good Articles: Open Tasks
This project identifies, organizes and improves good articles on Wikipedia.
Good article criteria | Statistics | GAN Report | Changes log
Nominations list: 540 articles (11 of them are on hold) as of 11:17, 21 September 2014 (UTC) | edit
CLOSED

This request for comment is closed. After 15 days of community vote, we have reached consensus on several things related to drives, and others may need further discussion at WT:GAN. The Big Question: Do we want drives?, was answered and, with 76% of approval, the answer is yes. Now, several proposals were made. The approved ones were:

  • Proposal 3: Disqualifying process: Each user with more than 5 removed reviews may be disqualified from the drive.
  • Proposal 4 - Part 2: Drive duration: Drives will last for one month.
  • Proposal 5: Drive scope: Drives will only be aimed to review the oldest nominations. Older nominations are those with more than one-to-two months on the queue. Nominations with less than a month should be excluded from the drive until all older nominations are reviewed.
  • Proposal 6 - Part 1: Drive and barnstars, Part 1: Barnstars will now be given for users who reviewed 5, 10 and 25 nominations. There will be neither leaderboard or a number-one position race, and disruptive competition for holding the highest number of reviews is discouraged.
    Proposal 6 - Part 1 got 67% of support, which is below of the 70% threshold. Although, several of the opposes expressed support to the proposal, and though it is considered as approved. This, as well as other proposals will be revisited at WT:GAN starting November 16, 2012.
  • Proposal 6 - Part 3: Drive and barnstars, Part 3: Each user may submit up to two reviews for consideration to receive a special barnstar which will be awarded to the best three reviews of the drive. A vote may be held with coordinators, drive reviewers and participants voting for their favourite review in order to select the three reviewers who will receive the award [each reviewer may receive only one award].
    This proposal will be further discussed before being implemented at drives, mainly because of its complexity. Although, as this is not being used until the drive's end, there is plenty of time to discuss how it may work. This will be held at WT:GAN.

Several other proposals were not approved by community. Several review limits and restrictions were proposed to see how community visualized them and they were strongly rejected. This leads to a very interesting conclusion: Reviewers, and users in general, are not interested in adding bureucracy and excessive limits to participate in drives, which is completely reasonable. Although, they expressed their satisfaction with the existence of better quality control measures, as well as disqualifying processess to avoid low-quality reviews and disruptive users.

An interesting proposal that will need discussion is the timing between drives. No consensus was reached whether a 1 month-3 month; 1 month-5 month rule will be used, and several users stated that drives may only be needed when necessary. Also, additional proposals were added, showcasing promising replacements for the drives, although further community input may be needed for that, in a future. Finally, I declare this RFC closed. Thanks to all users who participated. — ΛΧΣ21 05:04, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Request for Comment
Symbol support vote.svg
Wikipedia:Good articles
Symbol support vote.svg · Symbol oppose vote.svg · Symbol wait.svg · Symbol neutral vote.svg
Results
Proposal S O % R
Drives? 16 5 76% Yes
Proposal 1 [1] 2 14 12% No
Proposal 1 [2] 2 15 11% No
Proposal 2 6 11 35% No
Proposal 3 13 2 92% Yes
Proposal 4 [1] 0 3 0% No
Proposal 4 [2] 9 0 100% Yes
Proposal 4 [3] 8 6 57% No
Proposal 4 [4] 3 3 50% No
Proposal 5 14 4 78% Yes
Proposal 6 [1] 10 5 67% Yes
Proposal 6 [2] 0 5 0% No
Proposal 6 [3] 5 2 71% Yes
Last update: 04:46, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

GAN Backlog Elimination Drives are a process that has been held since the very foundation of the Good articles Wikiproject. The first drive was held between May and June of 2007 and, since then, the project has had a total nine backlog elimination drives; the most recent one was held between June and July of 2012. This last drive brought several bold questions between the GAN community about the productivity and efficiency of the backlog elimination drives when applied to the GAN process and, as a result, I decided to start this RFC to choose the future of the drives. This Request for comment begun on 1 November 2012 at 00:00 UTC and closed at 05:23, 15 November 2012 (UTC).

Details and funtionality of this RfC[edit]

This RfC will run for a minimum of 10 days but no more than 15. Therefore closure should not be made before November 9, 2012 but, not run past November 15, 2012. The first set of questions merely discuss the situation of our current GAN Backlog Elimination Drives. The second set of questions are proposals listed by different users as methods to improving or changing the system. Each proposal will be considered as approved if it received at least 70% of support over the total number of votes.

Note: The discussion of this proposals will be held on the talk page of the RFC and not here.

The Big Question[edit]

Should the GAN Backlog Elimination Drives still be held? (This is a majority vote. Proposals with the most consensus for support will be picked below if majority vote is yes.)

Proposals[edit]

Below are a series of proposals related to the GAN Backlog Elimination Drives. Please support or oppose the proposals as you see fit.

Proposals by Hahc21[edit]


The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.