Wikipedia talk:Good articles/GAN Backlog Drives/September 2019

Template

I have made a very simple template for checking reivews - Gacheck. It has two parameters. The first is just y or n for counts or doesn't count. The second is an optional explanation. It has to be substituted because it'll sign it for you automatically. Ping @Lee Vilenski and BlueMoonset: as people who've been helping to check. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 18:27, 3 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Old nominations reviews - Template or embedded pic?

I would like to give special recognition for those reviewers who take heed of our focus on older nominations (90 or more days in the queue when picked up for review). Do people think it would be better to create an additional barnstar (I would likely just take an exisiting barnstar copy it and change the image and title text) or embed it inside an exisiting Barnstar such as:

		The Multiple Good Article Reviewer's Barnstar
		Congrats on reviewing 18 GAs with 10 of those being older nominations. Barkeep49 (talk) 22:25, 3 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

.

Any thoughts or opinions are welcomed. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 22:25, 3 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I just think that any recognition for people prepared to take stuff which is old (usually long articles) and do a good job should just be thanked on their talkpage, a barnstar would be nice too. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 22:45, 3 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The Rambling Man, I agree old articles (which frequently are long and sometimes with hard to access or foreign language sources) deserve special plaudits. As the drive is setup now there are barnstars given out after X number of reviews. My question is would it be better to note and put in a bonus image, as shown in the example above, into the barnstar those editors receive or to give them a second bonus barnstar? Either is doable just want to see what people would prefer. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 22:50, 3 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I would just give it to people making the extra effort. The drive doesn't confer bonus points for such older nominations, so it'd be nice for others to be recognised for pulling the hard ones out of the pile. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 22:56, 3 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I like if others were given kudos who've tackled really old ones (especially if someone goes to review a 2018 one!). -MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 23:03, 3 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Quickfails question

In the instructions, it says quickfails are "allowed, only if the article is in exceptionally bad shape". So, would that mean the review has to be 1000 bytes of prose before quickfailing it? Or would be better to have an in-depth review before failing it? --MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 17:03, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say irrespective of whether or not it's allowed, it's a nice courtesy to the editors involved and/or whoever may come after them to leave at least a decently in-depth review of actionable elements as well as the higher-level issues with it failing the criteria. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 23:34, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That is a little ambiguous MrLinkinPark333; good question. As this whole drive is in a friendly collaborative spirit, rather than that of competition, the minimum length is there to ensure that we're not prioritizing speedy over quality as our decisions with the GAs will last. Obviously some articles will probably deserve a quickfail - though hopefully not articles which have been in the queue 90+ days as it would be a shame to quickfail something someone had waited patiently to happen only for it to be over in a snap. As DWF points out even with quickfails some level of review can be completed. I know this is a bit of an ambiguous answer and would love to have Lee Vilenski weigh in as someone else who has been looking at reviews. Bottom line, I'm inclined to say we wouldn't count for user totals, unless accompanied by the required feedback, though it would obviously have an impact on our stats. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 00:02, 5 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Barkeep49: In the article in question, my introductory explanation was almost 1000 bytes. However, just reviewing the first paragraph alone will bring it well over 1000 bytes. I don't mind providing an in-depth review for this one as I can access the sources. Plus, if I only mentioned the criteria that would be quickfailled, the article would not be in good condition the next time around cause of other issues. Also, this has been the second time I've ever considered failing an article, one of which I didn't up reviewing and let someone else quickfail it. --MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 00:11, 5 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I too have had articles where I've reached a point of "I've invested considerable amount of time in this review and found considerable problems and are nowhere near done." I think such a review, which will likely lead to a fail, can definitely be in the spirit of the drive. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 02:31, 5 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Realistically, we should always be giving a decent amount of commentary on a review. There's two kinds of "quick fails" in my eyes - Ones that clearly fail the "immediate failures" (things like a massive copyright violation, or a stub article or loads of ^{[citation needed]} tags) should just be an immediate failure. Realistically, there shouldn't be any of these that last for very long as a nomination. I sometimes look through the noms to see if there are any. The other type are ones that have prose issues, or MOS issues. We really should be offering reasons why an article doesn't meet the criteria. 1000 bytes (or chracters) isn't a particularly long commetary really, so I don't feel as though any review should be less than this. Personally I feel as though at least some comments should be required for this cause. You don't need to go through the entire article, and it looks like you gave enough information. Hope this makes sense. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 09:08, 5 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Lee Vilenski: The one on hold is not the one I'm referring to. It's a different one I haven't listed yet. Also in terms of "It is a long way from meeting any one of the six good article criteria", would this mean the entire criteria or any one of the subcriteria i.e. criteria 2 versus criteria 2a/criteria 2b. --MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 22:46, 5 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

For disclosure, I ended up failing Sylvia Massy as this one had a lot of unsourced/OR parts per a close examination, and obvious unreferenced paragraphs as well. --MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 20:58, 12 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

90 days queue question

Hello. I was wondering when the 90 days queue cutoff would be. Do it apply to articles already 3 months+ before the backlog drive started, or would that include ones that did become 3 months+ during this month of september? I know we can review any article, but i want to focus on ones that were there 3 months onwards. Thanks! --MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 20:57, 12 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

MrLinkinPark333, I have been doing a rolling 90 days when putting old nom or not. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 20:31, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Backlog Days

AmericanAir88 has graciously agreed to help note how many days reviews had been in the backlog. I think this is just another data point we can use to show the progress we're making with the backlog. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 20:32, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ooh, just had an idea...how about one additional award for the person whose mean backlog days cleared is the highest? That rewards someone who takes on the hardest ones and as a result doesn't get high numbers. And I notice the oldest noms are now under a year! Nice work, all! --valereee (talk) 14:07, 14 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Valereee, definitely worth a thought. If it's a different person than with the most overall it merits recognition in some way. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 14:43, 14 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Format encourages surface-level reviews

"Most reviews in a given period" format encourages surface-level reviews: "No broken URLs, all sentences in grammatical English. PASS GA". ♦ Lingzhi2 (talk) 15:46, 14 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

What? The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 17:54, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Lingzhi2: this is why myself or Lee Vilenski check that reviews are long enough. We definitely don't want articles being passed that don't deserve to be GA. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 17:59, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think the user has read any of the rules for the drive, nor seen the quality of the confirmed reviews. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 20:08, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not a user; I'm an editor. And yes I have seen the quality of the reviews, which is why I posted here. Please have a really nice day. ♦ Lingzhi2 (talk) 21:40, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Strange that this review has been accepted but this, this and this have been rejected. AhmadLX-(Wikiposta) 19:22, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Annual event

It's clear there's a decent appetite for this. I would certainly advocate it running at least once a year, if not perhaps every six months. It's making a tangible difference to the backlog and I think the interest is really good considering it was a really understated thing. I think we should aim for a note in Signpost and perhaps a message across the top of logged-in users screens for the next one (Q1 2020?). The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 17:54, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The Rambling Man, I agree that it has been really positive, especially given the low key nature. The idea of advertising in the signpost ahead of the next one also is good. If we want to do another drive soon I would recommend waiting 6 months or so (late Q1/early Q2). I wouldn't want to see us move to too much more than annual as I think more frequent than that we could get some fatigue among reviewers and it would be less effective. Doing the next one a little sooner given the opportunity to advertise to a broader audience would mean this could build off the momentum we've made here. The only thing that has been nice about this timeframe is that the WikiCup, which sees a surge of both nominations and reviews, is mostly over for people so this doesn't promote any kind of "double dipping". Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 18:11, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'd be happy with six-monthly. There's always a big backlog, and I think any push to get it under control is a good thing. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 20:06, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I don't disagree with any of the above, but GoCE have six month-long drives a year and manage to clear several hundred articles each time. Gog the Mild (talk) 13:59, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'd argue one potential downside of too-regular drives is that it can erode the pace during non-drive times and can encourage burnout or poor-quality reviews. I wouldn't recommend more than once-yearly. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 14:03, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

(←) I would request that the judges exclude quoted material when seeing if review meets minimum length requirements. Then do it twice a year. ♦ Lingzhi2 (talk) 14:07, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

breaking markup

GAH I've broken the markup trying to help. Vanamonde's section...what am I doing wrong? --valereee (talk) 19:10, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Valereee, did you fix it? I'm not seeing anything either visually or in the code that alarms me. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 22:30, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Lee Vilenski fixed it, and I think I've got it now! The last few I've done haven't broken anything. :) --valereee (talk) 09:20, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If you put a linebreak in between the hashes, it restarts the numbering. Lee has indeed fixed it, I had to fix it a few times early on after Lee's signature caused a similar issue. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 09:35, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Well done everyone!

As the drive draws to a close I'd just like to offer my congratulations to everyone who took part and helped make a REAL dent in the backlog. An amazing effort from an amazing group of volunteers. Roll on the 2020 drive! (But don't forget, GANs are always here, drive or no drive!). Cheers all. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 17:42, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent work everyone

I remember in the summer where I looked at the backlog number and realized that reviews could take months if not years. I proposed an idea as did others, to bring together the GA reviewers to help reduce the backlog. This idea became a reality and we did it. We reviewed almost 200 articles and helped each other out through analysis. Instead of a competition, we banded together to help reduce a backlog. As Good Article reviewers, we will strive to continue this trend and maybe in 6 months, we will come back together.

Great job everyone. Special thanks to @Lee Vilenski: and @Barkeep49:.

AmericanAir88^(talk) 23:53, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks AA. I hope to have a final confirmation of backlog eligible reviews in the next day or so and barnstars out by the end of the weekend. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 23:54, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Barkeep49, I've just changed the wording on the notice on the main GAN page to let people know that the drive has officially concluded. As of midnight, there were 463 nominations, 337 of which needed reviewing, and three more reviews have concluded since then, taking the total nominations down to 460. That still leaves 123 nominations under review, a number which will doubtless drop, along with the total nominations, over the next few days. This was a fantastically successful drive; the total number of nominations has dropped by 166 so far, and the number of unreviewed nominations by 196. Congratulations to all involved. BlueMoonset (talk) 01:29, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

BlueMoonset thanks to you for all your work in this drive. Knowing the table would be magically updated (by magic I of course mean through your diligent endeavors) is meaningful. So thanks for that edit and everything else you did here. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 01:37, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oct 1 finishes

We have a few reviews that were completed today but which were still submitted here. My thought is to give credit where all work was completed before Oct 1 0:00 UTC and the reviewer simply had to close the review. As this was designed to be a community building event more than a competition it feels in the spirit of the drive while still not stretching the guidelines we laid out in advance. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 01:21, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Barkeep49: Do article reviews that are still in progress count? On the drive page, it says "Article reviews started before 30 September but completed after 30 September are eligible to be counted into the running total." Was October 1 the deadline? Just curious. Bobbychan193 (talk) 19:13, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]