Articles for creation Project‑class | |||||||
|
The backlog elimination drive ended on July 31, 2013 (UTC). ( refresh) |
When will the leaderboard be updated? APerson241 ( talk!) 02:32, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
Six days in and still no scores - what does it take to start up the bot? Roger (Dodger67) ( talk) 07:56, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
Can we please have more frequent score updates - once a day would be great. Roger (Dodger67) ( talk) 18:09, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
I can't believe that every single one of the writers and submitters of junk, jokes, hoaxes, nonsense, spam, blank pages, and those who simply don't grok what a reference is, are all asleep! Only seven days into the drive and I'm bored.......... bored.......... bored.......... Roger (Dodger67) ( talk) 11:17, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
When me and Bonkers (the 2 SG dudes at the top of the table) go to school, you guys can go play already. :P Too bad, there's a school holiday tomorrow. ✉→ Arctic Kangaroo ←✎ 14:47, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
I tried to help by starting a bunch of NRHP articles requiring reviews, but youse guys chewed through them too fast. Thanks, all of you, anyhow, for helping form a Zorro-like backwards "N" swath of "fully-articled" U.S. counties running through all states in the western half of the lower 48. :) Highly worthwhile! -- do ncr am 17:59, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
Twice this evening I have placed a blue "Article under review" box on an article, then started reviewing it, only to have someone else decline it. Is something not working right? I would hate to think that any of the reviewers are ignoring the blue box and wasting my time deliberately, so there must be something non-functional about the "Article under review" process. Can any one enlighten me? — Anne Delong ( talk) 04:45, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
Well, since not very many reviewers are reviewing the reviews, I decided to take part in this, but I am confused. the instructions say to place the pass or fail beside the diffs, but people seem to be creating a new list at the bottom and putting the comments there. I am confused. Do we move the item to the new section, or do we copy it? What will happen when Excirial's AfcBuddy rewrites the page? I haven't done this before and I don't want to cause any format problems. — Anne Delong ( talk) 13:42, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
I added a copy of the AfC drive template at the top so I can get to the backlog page more easily. I hope nobody minds. (If you think it looks ugly, you can remove it.) APerson ( talk!) 01:19, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
I've got to say, I've never seen so many articles repeatedly declined because of their wording, either using the 'essay' or 'advert' reason! Often the problem is minimal, or easily fixed by an editor. There are also regular declines because of lack of inline citations. Perchance is this the result of gaming the system to get multiple reviews of articles, rather than accept them and put in the basic work to clean and fix them?? Some of the leaders of the leader board seem to be the prime culprits. After all, we're here to screen out the poorest articles, rather than prevent articles being accepted until they're perfect.
Just a rant really. I doubt there's much that can be done (though more reviews of reviews might help drop the hint). Sionk ( talk) 19:52, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
The above topic is symptomatic of the problems this drive is now causing - we haven't actually had a backlog for quite some time and now we have a few reviewers all "competing" to review the submissions as they "trickle" into the pending list. The competitive factor also seems to me to be negatively affecting the quality of the reviews - Earlier today I witnessed (in astonishment) one of the participating reviewers race through about thirty submissions in less than 15 minutes. The good spirit and friendly banter that characterised the start of this drive (see #Nothing to review!) has turned into unhealthy competition. Thus I propose that this drive should be closed as soon as possible and that future drives should automatically close as soon as the pending list is emptied for the first time - which in this drive happened on the 7th day. Roger (Dodger67) ( talk) 11:48, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
I'm just going to go on the record here and say that there were some good things about this drive, and some not-so-good. I hope that lessons have been learned. Congrats to reviewers who win if they declined submissions for good reasons. But-I think that in light of certain problems that were revealed to be occurring, I do not think that certain editors who are currently banned from this project, should receive any awards for what they have done here. That editor is currently in the top 3 [1] , and I think that their work should not be rewarded. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive805#WP:COMPETENCE_problem_with_Arctic_Kangaroo_on_AfC Housewifehader ( talk) 21:11, 31 July 2013 (UTC) Housewifehader ( talk) 21:24, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
Thank-you for explaining that. It does make a difference. Housewifehader ( talk) 02:41, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
Deduct the deductions by the rules you have for the drive, and then award him what's left. Doing so will help you to see what may have been wrong with the rules. Not doing so is obviously and clearly petty. The block or ban (or whatever) is to prevent damage to the encyclopedia, not as a punishment. If this drive was not done right, then do the next one better. Punishing the people who worked hard at it (but badly) does not achieve anything.
Oh, it does achieve one thing. It means that people who might consider working hard at it next time, but have no idea how "badly" random strangers might randomly judge their contributions... just won't bother.
What percentage of AK's reviews have been reviewed, by the way? -- Demiurge1000 ( talk) 22:16, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
It wouldn't be very nice if I still deserve the award but don't get it. BTW, the topic ban was enforced long after I abstained myself. Ritchie, you are welcome to review. I will take a look at the reviews when I'm free. ✉→ Arctic Kangaroo ←✎ 14:25, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
I thought I was going to get the Golden Wiki award...only to find out that Arctic Kangaroo got blocked! I'm really shocked at what I just heard. I'm quite disappointed because I did everything...for nothing! I do feel sorry about the issues with Arctic Kangaroo. I have to be honest here - I did some mistakes, but similar to AK, I'm quite actually new here at AfC, with the fact that last month was only my first month reviewing submissions! I already read about if the barnstars should be awarded...are we still going to despite AK's block on Wikipedia? -- みんな空の下 ( トーク) 18:14, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
It was last updated on 25 July, so the totals shown are not the real final count. Roger (Dodger67) ( talk) 18:15, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
I have just posted two objections to incorrecly failed reviews on my log - The re-reviewer doesn't know that lack of inline cites in BLPs is a valid decline reason. Re-Reviewers need to very sure they follow all the criteria properly. Roger (Dodger67) ( talk) 18:19, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
Dear reviewers: I feel that these re-reviews are valuable. There were several reviewers that were rushing a little, and looking back to see if the users received enough help is a good idea. Has anyone looked at the ones done by User:Techatology? He/she is no longer on the drive page, so I'm not sure how to check. Also, I hope that people will try to re-review some of everyone's, because even a careful reviewer could make an error through misunderstanding one of the policies - I know I seem to come across something almost every day that I didn't know. Also, I have begun looking back over my own reviews to see what has happened to the articles since I reviewed them, and if the editors look like they are stuck. — Anne Delong ( talk) 08:52, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
So, does anyone have an estimate of when the drive will be wrapped up (i.e. the reviews are mostly re-reviewed and the barnstars will be distributed)? If not, I would be happy to help with one or both of those tasks. APerson ( talk!) 18:57, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
Articles for creation Project‑class | |||||||
|
The backlog elimination drive ended on July 31, 2013 (UTC). ( refresh) |
When will the leaderboard be updated? APerson241 ( talk!) 02:32, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
Six days in and still no scores - what does it take to start up the bot? Roger (Dodger67) ( talk) 07:56, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
Can we please have more frequent score updates - once a day would be great. Roger (Dodger67) ( talk) 18:09, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
I can't believe that every single one of the writers and submitters of junk, jokes, hoaxes, nonsense, spam, blank pages, and those who simply don't grok what a reference is, are all asleep! Only seven days into the drive and I'm bored.......... bored.......... bored.......... Roger (Dodger67) ( talk) 11:17, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
When me and Bonkers (the 2 SG dudes at the top of the table) go to school, you guys can go play already. :P Too bad, there's a school holiday tomorrow. ✉→ Arctic Kangaroo ←✎ 14:47, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
I tried to help by starting a bunch of NRHP articles requiring reviews, but youse guys chewed through them too fast. Thanks, all of you, anyhow, for helping form a Zorro-like backwards "N" swath of "fully-articled" U.S. counties running through all states in the western half of the lower 48. :) Highly worthwhile! -- do ncr am 17:59, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
Twice this evening I have placed a blue "Article under review" box on an article, then started reviewing it, only to have someone else decline it. Is something not working right? I would hate to think that any of the reviewers are ignoring the blue box and wasting my time deliberately, so there must be something non-functional about the "Article under review" process. Can any one enlighten me? — Anne Delong ( talk) 04:45, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
Well, since not very many reviewers are reviewing the reviews, I decided to take part in this, but I am confused. the instructions say to place the pass or fail beside the diffs, but people seem to be creating a new list at the bottom and putting the comments there. I am confused. Do we move the item to the new section, or do we copy it? What will happen when Excirial's AfcBuddy rewrites the page? I haven't done this before and I don't want to cause any format problems. — Anne Delong ( talk) 13:42, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
I added a copy of the AfC drive template at the top so I can get to the backlog page more easily. I hope nobody minds. (If you think it looks ugly, you can remove it.) APerson ( talk!) 01:19, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
I've got to say, I've never seen so many articles repeatedly declined because of their wording, either using the 'essay' or 'advert' reason! Often the problem is minimal, or easily fixed by an editor. There are also regular declines because of lack of inline citations. Perchance is this the result of gaming the system to get multiple reviews of articles, rather than accept them and put in the basic work to clean and fix them?? Some of the leaders of the leader board seem to be the prime culprits. After all, we're here to screen out the poorest articles, rather than prevent articles being accepted until they're perfect.
Just a rant really. I doubt there's much that can be done (though more reviews of reviews might help drop the hint). Sionk ( talk) 19:52, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
The above topic is symptomatic of the problems this drive is now causing - we haven't actually had a backlog for quite some time and now we have a few reviewers all "competing" to review the submissions as they "trickle" into the pending list. The competitive factor also seems to me to be negatively affecting the quality of the reviews - Earlier today I witnessed (in astonishment) one of the participating reviewers race through about thirty submissions in less than 15 minutes. The good spirit and friendly banter that characterised the start of this drive (see #Nothing to review!) has turned into unhealthy competition. Thus I propose that this drive should be closed as soon as possible and that future drives should automatically close as soon as the pending list is emptied for the first time - which in this drive happened on the 7th day. Roger (Dodger67) ( talk) 11:48, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
I'm just going to go on the record here and say that there were some good things about this drive, and some not-so-good. I hope that lessons have been learned. Congrats to reviewers who win if they declined submissions for good reasons. But-I think that in light of certain problems that were revealed to be occurring, I do not think that certain editors who are currently banned from this project, should receive any awards for what they have done here. That editor is currently in the top 3 [1] , and I think that their work should not be rewarded. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive805#WP:COMPETENCE_problem_with_Arctic_Kangaroo_on_AfC Housewifehader ( talk) 21:11, 31 July 2013 (UTC) Housewifehader ( talk) 21:24, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
Thank-you for explaining that. It does make a difference. Housewifehader ( talk) 02:41, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
Deduct the deductions by the rules you have for the drive, and then award him what's left. Doing so will help you to see what may have been wrong with the rules. Not doing so is obviously and clearly petty. The block or ban (or whatever) is to prevent damage to the encyclopedia, not as a punishment. If this drive was not done right, then do the next one better. Punishing the people who worked hard at it (but badly) does not achieve anything.
Oh, it does achieve one thing. It means that people who might consider working hard at it next time, but have no idea how "badly" random strangers might randomly judge their contributions... just won't bother.
What percentage of AK's reviews have been reviewed, by the way? -- Demiurge1000 ( talk) 22:16, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
It wouldn't be very nice if I still deserve the award but don't get it. BTW, the topic ban was enforced long after I abstained myself. Ritchie, you are welcome to review. I will take a look at the reviews when I'm free. ✉→ Arctic Kangaroo ←✎ 14:25, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
I thought I was going to get the Golden Wiki award...only to find out that Arctic Kangaroo got blocked! I'm really shocked at what I just heard. I'm quite disappointed because I did everything...for nothing! I do feel sorry about the issues with Arctic Kangaroo. I have to be honest here - I did some mistakes, but similar to AK, I'm quite actually new here at AfC, with the fact that last month was only my first month reviewing submissions! I already read about if the barnstars should be awarded...are we still going to despite AK's block on Wikipedia? -- みんな空の下 ( トーク) 18:14, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
It was last updated on 25 July, so the totals shown are not the real final count. Roger (Dodger67) ( talk) 18:15, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
I have just posted two objections to incorrecly failed reviews on my log - The re-reviewer doesn't know that lack of inline cites in BLPs is a valid decline reason. Re-Reviewers need to very sure they follow all the criteria properly. Roger (Dodger67) ( talk) 18:19, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
Dear reviewers: I feel that these re-reviews are valuable. There were several reviewers that were rushing a little, and looking back to see if the users received enough help is a good idea. Has anyone looked at the ones done by User:Techatology? He/she is no longer on the drive page, so I'm not sure how to check. Also, I hope that people will try to re-review some of everyone's, because even a careful reviewer could make an error through misunderstanding one of the policies - I know I seem to come across something almost every day that I didn't know. Also, I have begun looking back over my own reviews to see what has happened to the articles since I reviewed them, and if the editors look like they are stuck. — Anne Delong ( talk) 08:52, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
So, does anyone have an estimate of when the drive will be wrapped up (i.e. the reviews are mostly re-reviewed and the barnstars will be distributed)? If not, I would be happy to help with one or both of those tasks. APerson ( talk!) 18:57, 10 August 2013 (UTC)