Wikipedia talk:Good articles/GAN Backlog Drives/September-November 2007

Some ideas

I think the awards a bit too easy, especially since the drive is 3 months long. Howabout 10, 25, 50? Also, the on hold gets 0.5 points seems weird. If it's on hold it'll eventually either pass or fail, therefore they'll get 1 point either way. Also, I'd avoid using the word "points." Howabout "reviews?" Drewcifer 23:35, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm open to suggestions on the points for awards. I just upped them to 10, 20, and 35, but I could see going with your suggestion, too. I also added 'discretionary barnstars', which could be given for various small tasks like reviewing a particularly long article, or reviewing an article that's been on hold for 3-4 weeks. I'd like to hear what others have to say about these.

With the 0.5 points for an on hold, I was trying to address the issue of giving some sort of credit if someone spends a good amount of time and writes a good amount of information about an article, ends up placing it on hold, but the on hold issues aren't addressed until the contest is over. There still should be motivation for reviewers to address on holds during the contest, though, since they'll get full credit instead of partial credit. What do others think? Dr. Cash 23:41, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I could still go either way on the numbers here. My general thinking with keeping them at 10, 20, and 35 is because these awards will be given out three times, at the end of each month. So, in comparison with the July drive, it's a slight increase over the previous requirements, but not hugely significant so as to deter reviewers with unreasonably high expectations. Of course, there will also be another set of awards, the Gold/Silver/Bronze, which will only be given out once, at the end. Dr. Cash 00:40, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinators

It would be helpful to get some additional coordinators for the drive. While I don't think we want too many, we definitely need more than one to help verify reviews; preferably 3-5, with no more than 5, since that could cause too much conflicts. Are any of the coordinators of the previous July drive interested? Dr. Cash 23:44, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

September 2007 Review Drive?

I am not exactly in favor of calling this the 'September 2007 Review Drive', mainly because the drive is intended to go beyond September, and be 3-months long. But somehow, an editor just decided to change the name of the page to that, citing that 'fall' is not known worldwide,... huh? Does anyone have any better ideas? Dr. Cash 17:54, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Autumn is known worldwide however it only begins in September for the Northern Hemisphere. T Rex | talk 17:59, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why not review drive 2007 Sep - Nov? -- RHaworth 19:05, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That seems like a better one, although I think Sep - Nov 2007 Review Drive would be even better. Dr. Cash 21:10, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What is your justification for caps on Review Drive? -- RHaworth 07:10, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Points to consider

I'm glad that the previous drive creates interest for more editors to help out at GAC. I would like to point out some key problems found in previous drive (so that you guys won't repeat my path):

One month is already long enough to keep me occupied for 2 weeks after the drive has ended because we have to go through reviews to make sure that they're really worth to be promoted to GA. One month of drive is already problematic, three months will be catastrophic.
Got to have and keep a cool head to deal with new GAC reviewers. Some, like me, are new reviewers eager to learn. Others are just messing around. (Yes, I wasn't reviewing GA candidates until spring 2007!)
Consider reusing the same elimination drive page, and archive the summer one to a subpage for future references. This way people don't need to remember all the page names and keep all backlog elimination drives in different periods under same page name.
Be bold! If something's easy to fix (such as fair use rationale), go up and fix it yourself. (For borderline pages only!)If a review is obvious that it contradicts the article , speak up! Leave a message on the talk page stating your concerns, watch the page, and come back 5-7 days later to see if it's improved or not.
If possible, hold the review drive until Sweeps is finished, which could take a while. We're checking EVERY SINGLE GA article on the list to make sure they met the criteria (whether or not they became GA prior or after the criteria has been created). Since we're checking it by going in categories, the increased # of GA as a product of this drive will eventually defeats the purpose of Sweeps because people will keep adding articles to the list. —Preceding unsigned comment added by OhanaUnited (talk • contribs) 04:25, August 27, 2007 (UTC)
Going back to point #1, LaraLove told me that she's interested in creating a continuation of August's drive and requested for my help. I refused due to the fact that the work in August's drive is not finished yet. She suggested that leaders/coordinators can go on a rotation so that they're not too stressed or worked out. The workload actually starts after the drive's finished. That's the time where you start having ~~confrontations~~ discussions with other editors. Heck, look at what I got myself inot at my editor review and GA/R, people don't like me delisting GAs even with prior notices and the GA review that promotes the article to GA class is inaccurate.

I will ask you to reconsider again for the duration of this drive from my personal experience. OhanaUnited ^{Talk page} 04:02, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

With the first drive that I started, I practically just threw it together with little planning, probably due to desperation from the overwhelming backlog at the time. I was very impressed with the second backlog drive that occurred a few weeks later led by OhanaUnited, which lasted longer, involved more reviewers, and nearly eliminated the backlog. I'm sure that the number of nominations will continue to increase as more editors become aware of the GA process and as articles continue to improve and be discovered. Another drive would certainly help to clear the backlog, and again, hopefully new reviewers. I agree with OhanaUnited that the drive should be started until the last one's articles have been completely checked over. I agree with all of the points listed above, except for making the changes the article needs to pass. Adding a FUR or correcting some small mistkae may be quick and easy to do, but it is better for the nominator or editors of the page to be familiar with what needs to be corrected and performing it themselves rather than just having it done for them. This will help prepare them for future GA/FA nominations and ensure they can correct their mistakes while also passing along their knowledge on to other editors. If there is another planned drive, I'd be willing to leave a drive notice on all of the editors' talk pages again. This time, we should also be willing to wait to distribute any awards until all of the reviews have been verified. --Nehrams2020 03:08, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just in case people missed out what I said. I'm going to recap the additional stuff I added to this section.

If possible, hold the review drive until Sweeps is finished, which could take a while. We're checking EVERY SINGLE GA article on the list to make sure they met the criteria (whether or not they became GA prior or after the criteria has been created). Since we're checking it by going in categories, the increased # of GA as a product of this drive will eventually defeats the purpose of Sweeps because people will keep adding articles to the list. OhanaUnited ^{Talk page} 04:21, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Even though the review drive was (partially) my idea, I have to agree with Ohana. Let's wait until the sweeps are over, since starting a review drive now will essentially undermine the GA sweeps. I myself am already participating in the sweeps, and I would urge anyone who wants to get this particular review drive off the ground to participate as well. Sooner we finish that the sooner we can get this bad boy up and running. Drewcifer 04:29, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OhanaUnited brings up some good points. I am willing to put this on hold for the time being, until sweeps is finished, or if we need to get more consensus with the GA wikiproject folks. Is there any ETA on the completion of these 'sweeps'?

I do like the idea of rotating coordinators of review/backlog drives, so a few people don't get too tired or overworked. Maybe instead of one big 3-month long drive, it would be better to have more frequent, one-month long drives, coordinated in an alternating fashion?

I do have some reservations about using the 'backlog elimination drive' name, as I think 'review drive' more accurately describes what we're trying to accomplish. If we focus too much on the backlog, rather than attracting more good GA reviewers, we might just get more people quickly reviewing articles just to keep the backlog down. I think calling it a 'review drive' would enable us to focus more on attracting and educating good, quality reviewers that would help to promote the program. Dr. Cash 04:59, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, yes, I agree with Ohana - we should probably wait for the sweeps to run. One thing at a time. — Giggy 07:44, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Drives in one place

It seems to make sense to me to organise backlog elimination / review drives in one place, so I took the liberty of moving this proposed drive to a different subpage of WikiProject Good articles, along with the July 2007 drive. I haven't found any other drives, although the July 2007 drive refers to one in May. Does anyone know if there are any other pages with previous review drives? Geometry guy 14:08, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The drive I held in May is located on my user subpage for GA-related items. You can see it here. Although it wasn't as successful as the next drive it did bring some new reviewers to the GAN process. --Nehrams2020 19:33, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Actually I found it already and linked it. I think you are too modest: the work you did laid the foundation for making backlog elimination drives more successful. Your work on GA is much appreciated. Geometry guy 23:08, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]