Main

Criteria

Instructions

Nominations

Backlog drives

Mentorship

Discussion

Reassessment

Report

The March 2021 GAN Backlog Drive is a one-month-long effort to reduce the backlog of Good Article nominations. Please ensure that you familiarise yourself with the Good Article review process before starting to review an article, and that you are familiar with the GA criteria and the Manual of Style. Also, it is recommended that you read the essays What the Good article criteria are not and Reviewing good articles. The co-ordinators for this drive are Eddie891, Lee Vilenski, and Buidhe. If you have any questions, leave a message on this drive's talk page. The drive begins on 1 March 2021 at 00:00:01 (UTC) and ends on 31 March 2021 at 23:59:59 (UTC).

The ultimate goal of this backlog elimination drive is to cut the number of outstanding GANs and in particular those which have been in the queue 90 days or more. Awards will be given out to those individuals who do the most work in helping reduce the size of the backlog and reach milestones, such as reviewing 15 GANs, vice versa. This backlog drive is modelled on the October 2020 drive; as a result, no additional points will be awarded based on how long a review is. This is to ensure a faster rate of decreasing backlog whilst maintaining quality reviews. Consequently, "quick-fails" are allowed, only if the article is in exceptionally bad shape. If a participant is found rapidly rubber-stamping GANs that do not meet the criteria, they may be disqualified. Each review will be checked by a co-ordinator to ensure that this does not happen.

1. Give preference to older nominations. While any review counts for the drive, please give extra consideration to nominations which have been in the queue 90 days or more.
2. Log completed GANs here. If you complete a GAN for an article, don't forget to list it here so that you can get credit for the review.
3. No rubber-stamping GANs. Good Article nominations tend to result in even better improvements if a reasonable amount of issues are brought up in a review. This can be especially useful when approaching Featured Article standing. Quick-fails are allowed if the article is in exceptionally poor shape or per the GA criteria page. Each review and its article will be checked by the co-ordinator to ensure that rubber-stamping does not happen.
4. Minimum quality Only reviews of a sufficient quality will be counted; quick fails and very short reviews may not be given credit. As a rough guide, no review shorter than 1,000 bytes will be considered, though the judges reserve the right to remove other short reviews. This is not to say that such short reviews are not worthwhile, it is merely to say that they will not be recognised in this competition.
5. 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.
6. 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 judgement if concerns are/are not addressed in a timely matter. Generally, it is standard for a GA review to be on hold for seven days, however the reviewer may close their review when they see fit.
7. Have fun. We're here to help bring these articles up to their fullest potential and hence improving the overall quality of the encyclopaedia. If you do not enjoy doing that, then there is no motivation to improve these articles and the encyclopaedia as a whole.

Graphs are unavailable due to technical issues. There is more info on Phabricator and on MediaWiki.org.

Date	Outstanding nominations	Unreviewed nominations	Change since previous day [N 1]	Change since beginning [N 1]
1 March 2020	666	579	—	—
2 March 2020	655	536	43 (7.4%)	43 (7.4%)
3 March 2020	651	532	4 (0.7%)	47 (8.1%)
4 March 2020	649	513	19 (3.6%)	66 (11.4%)
5 March 2020	642	498	15 (2.9%)	81 (14%)
6 March 2020	638	483	15 (3%)	96 (16.6%)
7 March 2020	615	449	34 (7%)	130 (22.5%)
8 March 2020	605	444	5 (1.1%)	135 (23.3%)
9 March 2020	594	442	2 (0.5%)	137 (23.7%)
10 March 2020	579	438	4 (0.9%)	141 (24.4%)
11 March 2020	564	422	16 (3.7%)	157 (27.1%)
12 March 2020	557	419	3 (0.7%)	160 (27.6%)
13 March 2020	536	398	21 (5%)	181 (31.3%)
14 March 2020	525	380	18 (4.5%)	199 (34.4%)
15 March 2020	512	371	9 (2.4%)	208 (35.9%)
16 March 2020	500	363	8 (2.2%)	216 (37.3%)
17 March 2020	497	352	11 (3%)	227 (39.2%)
18 March 2020	479	339	13 (3.7%)	240 (41.5%)
19 March 2020	476	337	2 (0.6%)	242 (41.8%)
20 March 2020	474	334	3 (0.9%)	245 (42.3%)
21 March 2020	463	325	9 (2.7%)	254 (43.9%)
22 March 2020	464	326	1 (0.3%)	253 (43.7%)
23 March 2020	451	323	3 (0.9%)	256 (44.2%)
24 March 2020	436	312	11 (3.4%)	267 (46.1%)
25 March 2020	435	310	2 (0.6%)	269 (46.5%)
26 March 2020	419	301	9 (2.9%)	278 (48%)
27 March 2020	409	290	11 (3.7%)	289 (49.9%)
28 March 2020	394	284	6 (2.1%)	295 (50.9%)
29 March 2020	391	282	2 (0.7%)	297 (51.3%)
30 March 2020	384	278	4 (1.4%)	301 (52%)
31 March 2020	385	270	8 (2.9%)	309 (53.4%)
1 April 2020	383	273	3 (1.1%)	306 (52.8%)

To receive an award, please include your name and the number of reviews you have completed as part of this drive. Awards will be given by the co-ordinator(s) after this drive ends.

This is the scheme for the awards:

At least 2 GANs reviewed: The Invisible Barnstar

At least 5 GANs reviewed: The Working Wikipedian's Barnstar

At least 10 GANs reviewed: The Tireless Contributor Barnstar

At least 15 GANs reviewed: The Reviewer Barnstar

At least 20 GANs reviewed: The Multiple Good Article Reviewer Barnstar

At least 30 GANs reviewed: The WikiProject Good Articles Medal of Merit

At least 50 GANs reviewed: The Order of the Superior Scribe of Wikipedia

In addition, the person who reviews the most Good Article nominations during the backlog elimination drive will receive the Content Review Medal of Merit

Running total

Keep a running total of your reviewing in the Participants section below by creating your own list. Only passes and fails will be recognised as completing a review. If necessary, you can put the article on hold if the article needs to be edited further to be passed. Each of your reviews should be included in your list. Article reviews started before 31 March but completed after 31 March can be included in the running total – however should be completed as quickly as possible to avoid being too late. Reviews started before 1 March do not count. Please state if the article is a pass, fail, or on hold. Make sure you follow up on reviews that you have started or placed on hold.

A sample review section is below; all sections start with a fourth-level header containing the editor's username and the {{ Div col}} template, and end with the {{ Div col end}} template. Between those templates, each article reviewed is given its own line. Use the "GA" icon line for an article that passes, the "DA" icon line for an article that fails, the "GAH" icon line for an article where the initial review is complete and has been placed on hold, and the "GAN" icon line for an article where the review has started but has not yet been placed on hold. (Change "GAN" and "GAH" to "GA" or "DA" when the article passes or fails.)

====[[User:Username|Username]]====
{{Div col}} 
#{{icon|GA}} [[Talk:Articlename/GAn|Articlename]]
#{{icon|DA}} [[Talk:Articlename/GAn|Articlename]]
#{{icon|GAH}} [[Talk:Articlename/GAn|Articlename]]
#{{icon|GAN}} [[Talk:Articlename/GAn|Articlename]]
{{Div col end}}

Participants

Ahmetlii

Ajpolino

Alan Islas

AmericanAir88

Amitchell125

Andrew nyr

ArnabSaha

Aza24

Babegriev

Bait30

Ballpointbiro

BennyOnTheLoose

Bilorv

Bobamnertiopsis

Buidhe

Carbrera

Casliber

1. 2017 FA Cup Final Y ( t · c) buidhe 23:45, 23 March 2021 (UTC) reply
2. Balrog Y Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 19:42, 31 March 2021 (UTC) reply
3. History of Brentford F.C. (1986–present) Y Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 19:42, 31 March 2021 (UTC) reply

Chipmunkdavis

DasallmächtigeJ

David Fuchs

Eddie891

Editoneer

Epicgenius

Extraordinary Writ

Goldsztajn

Gog the Mild

Hog Farm

Jaguar

JPxG

K. Peake

Kieran207

Kingsif

Kncny11

Kosack

Lee Vilenski

Link20XX

LM150

MeegsC

Modussiccandi

MrLinkinPark333

MSG17

MWright96

MEisSCAMMER

1. Tobias Watkins Y ( t · c) buidhe 16:04, 4 March 2021 (UTC) reply
2. Woodrow Wilson N This review does not fully explain the reasons for why it meets the criteria, or offer any suggestion for improvement. ( t · c) buidhe 00:02, 5 March 2021 (UTC) reply

Pbrks

PCN02WPS

REDMAN 2019

Reidgreg

RoySmith

RunningTiger123

Sammi Brie

Soaper1234

Some Dude From North Carolina

starsandwhales

StraussInTheHouse

Tayi Arajakate

theleekycauldron

The Most Comfortable Chair

TRM

The Ultimate Boss

Usernameunique

Wasted Time R

Whiteguru

Willbb234

Z1720

420Traveler