Wikipedia:WikiProject Good articles/GAN Backlog Drives/December 2013

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: 360 articles (15 of them are on hold) as of 11:17, 16 April 2014 (UTC) | edit
December 2013
GAN Review Round
Symbol support vote.svg
Wikipedia:Good articles
Participants: 17
Final Count
Articles reviewed: 116
Final Count
Symbol support vote.svg · Symbol oppose vote.svg · Symbol wait.svg · Symbol neutral vote.svg

The 2013 December GAN Backlog Drive was a month-long effort (originally organized by the GAN WikiProject and other users) to reduce the backlog of Good Article nominations. Please make sure that you read the whole Good Article review process before starting to review an article, and that you are very familiar with the GA criteria and the WP:Manual of Style. It is strongly recommended reading the essays What the Good article criteria are not and Reviewing good articles. There were no coordinators for this drive. If you have questions, leave a message on the drive's talk page. The drive began on December 1, 2013 at 0:00:01 (UST) and ended on December 31, 2013 at 23:59:59 (UST).

The goal of this backlog drive is to bring the number of outstanding Good Article nominations down as a low as possible while maintaining quality over quantity reviews. All nominations listed at WP:GAN are eligible to be reviewed. Awards will be given out at the end of the drive (please read below for more info).

December 2013 GAN Backlog Drive Chart.png




Basic Guidelines
  1. Log completed Good Article reviews here. If you complete a GAN for an article, don't forget to sign your name in the table. Quick-fails will not be counted.
  2. No rubber-stamping of GANs. Be thorough and complete in your GANs, and make sure all the i's are dotted and the t's crossed. Generally Good article nominations tend to result in even better improvements to articles and can go a long way especially when approaching Featured Article standing.
  3. Provide constructive criticism. If you see a problem or problems in a certain article you're reviewing, don't be afraid to point that out and indicate to the nominator what's wrong. Instead of merely pointing to the problems, guide the nominator to possible ways of fixing those problems. Similarly, if the article is not of Good Article quality yet, don't be afraid to fail, but make sure you provide guidance as to how to get the article up to GA quality.
  4. Stick with it. An article isn't improved if it remains on hold for months. Instead, make the smaller corrections, make sure the primary writer is actively editing, and make the pass/fail judgment if concerns are/are not addressed in a timely matter. Watch the talk page and look to see what's being done and if anyone has questions.
  5. Have fun. We're here to help bring these articles up to their fullest potential and hence improving the overall quality of the encyclopedia. If you do not enjoy doing that, then there is no motivation to improve these articles and the encyclopedia as a whole.
Help Guides

Following is a list of all the guidelines needed/required to review Good Article nominees:

Tools

When reviewing, you can use the following recommended tools:

Awards

Unlike previous drives, there will not be certain "levels" to achieve to certain barnstars. All participants will get the same barnstar. Also, when creating your totals list, be sure to include a goal for yourself as if you reach your goal, you will receive an additional barnstar.

NOTE: Users who are found to have 5 or more insufficient reviews will be disqualified.

Totals

All reviews will be worth 1 point with the exception of Quick-fails which will not be counted. When you first create your totals list, include how many article you want to review (your goal).

Article reviews started before January 1, 2014 but completed before [or by] February 1, 2014 are eligible to be counted into the running total. Reviews started before December 1, 2013 do not count.

NOTE: Users who are found to have 5 or more insufficient reviews will not receive any awards.

Review Team

In order to ensure that quality is kept over quantity, a reasonable number of reviews from a user will need to be approved as a quality review before any awards are given out. For this to be done in a timely manner, we need as much help as we can.

Users who join the Review Team will receive an additional barnstar.

If you would like to be part of the Review Team, please add your name below.

Review Team Members

  1. Dom497
  2. Edge3
  3. Royroydeb
NEW: Pledges

During the discussion regarding this backlog drive, an idea was mentioned that users could pledge a certain amount of money (per review) that would be donated to the WMF at the end of the drive (more pledges + reviews = donations to WMF). In no way is this saying that you must pledge, however, it is greatly appreciated if you do. If you would like to make a pledge, please add your name below (no matter where you live please write your pledge in US currency).

Anyone who pledges will receive an additional barnstar.

Pledges

  1. Khazar2: 3 cents per review.
  2. Edge3: 5 cents per review.
  3. J Milburn: 3 cents per review.
  4. MusikAnimal: 10 cents per review.

Total: 18 cents per review.

Total Donation: $20.88 (USD)

To update your totals or add your name to the list, click here.