Any thoughts on individual awards for this upcoming drive, i.e. for number of reviews, most reviewed nominations, etc.? – MuZemike 20:28, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
I would like to see an award for, say, reviewing in five different subcategories - I think it is good for folks to sometimes review in different categories (?) Casliber ( talk · contribs) 08:43, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
I think to make sure that no one reviews so many articles at a time that no one has a chance to review an article, there should be some limits on the articles you can review at a time. There should also be a rule that if, for example, A is reviewing an article and B helps A with reviewing the article, both A and B would get credit for reviewing it. However, both would have to do about the same amount of reviewing on that article (to make sure that people don't just go on making one comment about each article to get points). Anyone agree? -- Ha dg er 02:51, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
I had a question: are we going to make userboxes again? — Hun ter Ka hn 21:07, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
I think it's smart that it says that Wikipedia as a whole is the winner. I can see it's there so everyone feels good about what they did and no one feels like they somehow "lost" for not getting the award for reviewing the most articles. It really helps people feel confident about what they did with reviewing articles. -- Ha dg er 23:42, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
I agree with the quality concerns raised by Hadger above. It is important that the rules really aim to encourage quality reviews and collaboration. I think a limit on the number of GA's reviewed at one time might make sense in this regard. Also, the idea of crediting secondary reviewers would encourage collaboration. How about 1/2 point for secondary reviewer based on nomination from primary reviewer? I am also a bit concerned about the 40 GANs award...how about reducing it to 30 (1 per day sounds crazy enough) ? -- Elekhh ( talk) 06:53, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
I don't have much experience with these sort of drives, but I'm a bit worried about a land-grab at the beginning. What is to stop someone from agreeing to 20 reviews all at once? Or is that allowed? If it is, its sort of like squatting. With 40+ reviewers and less than 500 articles outstanding, not everyone will be able to get that top medal (which is as it should be), but what's to stop the more ambitious from "staking a claim" by sitting on a lot of reviews? I'm hoping there's some sort of rule I don't know about that takes care of this concern...is there? ɳorɑfʈ Talk! 05:34, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
I'm just wondering about the rules- I currently have a few articles on review/on hold, of which at least one, Avril Lavigne will probably pass given another few days' work but probably not before 1 April. If I pass it after 1 April, can I log it here? I'm not after extra glory, but I am slightly curious because I can't be the only reviewer in that position. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 16:43, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
Another reason the drive should last longer is because it would be hard for someone to review 40 articles in 30 days, even if the person does review more than one in a day (because they would still have to pass or fail all of those articles). Isn't one a day enough work for a person? But either way, this is just a suggestion. I just think it would be pretty hard to review 40 articles in 30 (by the way, people would review 40 to get the "The Order of the Superior Scribe of Wikipedia" barnstar). -- Ha dg er 20:44, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
Since the elimination drive starts now (it's April 1 UTC right now), what do we do with the thing that says "The drive will start on 1 April 2010"? -- Ha dg er 00:02, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
Some reminders for everyone who are reviewing GANs (especially those people new to GA reviewing):
See Wikipedia:Good article nominations#How to review an article for all the instructions
{{
subst:GANotice}}
if you need a template.– MuZemike 01:42, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
OK, we're three hours in, and i'm already feeling like i'm going to be running around after editors, trying to keep content creators / nominators from thinking "WTF"? A reminder all: the goal is better articles. This is not achieved by upsetting editors who may have been waiting weeks or months for a review, only to find their articles failed without an opportunity to respond. I was going to join in the elimination drive as a reviewer, but I've changed tack: I'll be auditing reviews instead. Cheers, hamiltonstone ( talk) 02:06, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
I have started an audit list here: User:Hamiltonstone/GAReviews#Audits undertaken during April GAN backlog elimination. If an editor wants to check what's been looked at, feel free to check it out. hamiltonstone ( talk) 03:25, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
Some comments for the above:
– MuZemike 14:58, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
If anyone gets a chance, can someone please go through the list of on-hold GANs (those at Category:Good article nominees currently on hold as well as those additional ones marked as "on hold" on WP:GAN) and make sure they weren't abandoned? If you see one that's abandoned, please pick it up and review it. – MuZemike 16:22, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
Currently, this page says:
"There are 50 editors participating the April 2010 GAN backlog elimination drive, which means the following:
I get that the point of this is to encourage people to do a certain number of reviews, but these numbers are in all likelihood a gross underestimate of the number required to reach the two stated milestones, and may be damaging in the long run. Last year's drive saw 330 reviews reducing the backlog by 126 articles. The one before that saw 222 reviews reducing the backlog by just 49. The reason for this is because people nominate new articles as the drive progresses - rst20xx ( talk) 20:30, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
Regarding the original point (which is a good point), the goal statements would be correct if they said: "If everybody reviewed at least 9 Good Article nominations today, we would completely clear out the GAN queue." That doesn't make much sense, as it isn't possible, but it would make more sense to say "If everybody reviewed at least 9 Good Article nominations, we would completely clear out the GAN backlog." ɳorɑfʈ Talk! 01:55, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
Just a reminder that with the bot not working to update the nominations report (I have reported that), the reviews are not automatically transcluded to the article talk pages any more. I assume that the two things are comnnected. –– Jezhotwells ( talk) 15:22, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
Talk:Taare Zameen Par/GA1 → Started on 1 April but has not been acted on in a week. Can anyone pick up that review, please? – MuZemike 13:27, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
Talk:Murder of Huang Na/GA2 → Marked as "on hold" since 19 March and has had little action since. – MuZemike 18:17, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
Talk:History of liberalism/GA1 and Talk:Liberalism/GA1 → Both marked as "on hold" since 26 March, and both are under the same nominator; no action since. – MuZemike 18:17, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
Talk:White Stag Leadership Development Program/GA4 → Marked as "on hold" since 11 March; No action since 2 April even after for a request for status by Wizardman; probably needs someone else to step in and go over it again per [1]. – MuZemike 18:17, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
Talk:Production-possibility frontier/GA1 → Marked as "on hold" since 22 March; no action since 28 March. – MuZemike 18:17, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
Talk:Honest services fraud/GA1 → Marked as "on hold" since 7 March; there has been some action, but it likely needs someone to look at it again. – MuZemike 18:17, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
Talk:Coronation of the Russian monarch/GA1 → Marked as "on hold" since 7 March; no action since 25 March. – MuZemike 18:17, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
Talk:Delhi Metro/GA1 → Marked as "on hold" since 22 March; no action since 22 March. – MuZemike 18:17, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
Talk:His Band and the Street Choir/GA1 → Under review since 22 March; but it looks like there is some recent action still going there. – MuZemike 18:17, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
Talk:Avril Lavigne/GA1 → Under review since 27 March; no action since 30 March. – MuZemike 18:17, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
Talk:Ave Imperator, morituri te salutant/GA1 → Under review since 16 March; no action since 23 March. – MuZemike 18:17, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
Talk:BBC News/GA2 → Under review since 8 March; no action since 20 March. – MuZemike 18:17, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
Talk:New Mexico/GA1 → Under review since 20 March; no action since 28 March. – MuZemike 18:17, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
Talk:Illegal logging in Madagascar/GA1 → Under review since 15 February; no action since 5 March. – MuZemike 18:17, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
I'm reviewing a BLP and brought up a concern about notability. The nominator's response was "notability isn't a GA criterion." It seems awfully odd to me, to promote an article that I may be MfD'ing the following day. What should I do? ɳorɑfʈ Talk! 02:48, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
That is why, I did fail them, insufficiently referenced. The main semi-RS references provided wer reviews to the series on DVD sityes, with no mentions of the individual episodes or merely episode listings. –– Jezhotwells ( talk) 09:58, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
I reviewed Cosmos (book), and the person who nominated it doesn't seem to be paying attention to the review that much. The two errors that are left with the article seem to be ones that I don't know how to fix. Would it be appropriate to fail the article, or do I have to give it more time? -- Ha dg er 23:04, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
I was updating the statistics I keep, and thought you might like to see the effects of the backlog drive:
Quite impressive - well done all! Shimgray | talk | 12:57, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
Hi, I would like an opinion regarding the length of an article for GA. This has not been a problem until I came across This Time Around (Michael Jackson song) - Talk:This Time Around (Michael Jackson song)/GA1. The proposer says that no more information is available, and technically, the article should (eventually) comply to GA requirements. I can't seem to find any guidelines on this. If it fails, it will probably be on the grounds of not being focused enough. Does it deserve to fail on this (considering that is a fairly insignificant single from a big star like Jackson, and hence not much exists in terms of references), or is that unfair? Any thoughts? -- S Masters ( talk) 07:10, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
Who gets credit for joint reviews? For instance, GamerPro64 started a review on Super Mario Bros.: The Lost Levels but asked for a second opinion. I gave a second opinion and failed the article. Should it be listed under both of our names? Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ( Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 18:04, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
For those of you who
I am pleased to announce the Wikipedia Guild of Copy Editors Backlog Elimination Drive is starting May 1. There are over 8,000 articles with the {{copyedit}} tag, and about a thousand on the Copy Editors' request page. Let's see what kind of dent we can make in a month. ɳorɑfʈ Talk! 05:43, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
Okay, okay, I know the encyclopedia is the real winner here, but I just wanted to say thanks to the editors who reviewed eleven of my articles and promoted ten of them. Personally, I reviewed ten articles, so the net result of my backlog participation was negative: eleven articles added to the job load, ten articles taken under task. I didn't help the "backlog" exactly, but I helped something! ^_^
Binksternet ( talk) 18:46, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
My count for the total number of GANs reviewed during the GAN backlog elimination drive in April (counting those reviews picked by by others after being abandoned as one) at 661 – about 5 short of The Number :) – MuZemike 01:37, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
Putting some statistics listing what was accomplished during the GAN backlog elimination drive:
More coming when the last day's results come in. – MuZemike 02:10, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
Just a reminder to everyone to keep reviewing and finishing those GANs that have gone on after the end of the drive. We have counted them as completed reviews for the sake of the drive, but we will need closure on all of them, preferably within 1 week. That will help build confidence in those who nominate articles for GA that they will get reviewed expdiently and accurately. – MuZemike 06:18, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
Were barnstars actually given out? I didn't get one? boo hoo! ;) Matthewedwards : Chat 03:57, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
Any thoughts on individual awards for this upcoming drive, i.e. for number of reviews, most reviewed nominations, etc.? – MuZemike 20:28, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
I would like to see an award for, say, reviewing in five different subcategories - I think it is good for folks to sometimes review in different categories (?) Casliber ( talk · contribs) 08:43, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
I think to make sure that no one reviews so many articles at a time that no one has a chance to review an article, there should be some limits on the articles you can review at a time. There should also be a rule that if, for example, A is reviewing an article and B helps A with reviewing the article, both A and B would get credit for reviewing it. However, both would have to do about the same amount of reviewing on that article (to make sure that people don't just go on making one comment about each article to get points). Anyone agree? -- Ha dg er 02:51, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
I had a question: are we going to make userboxes again? — Hun ter Ka hn 21:07, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
I think it's smart that it says that Wikipedia as a whole is the winner. I can see it's there so everyone feels good about what they did and no one feels like they somehow "lost" for not getting the award for reviewing the most articles. It really helps people feel confident about what they did with reviewing articles. -- Ha dg er 23:42, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
I agree with the quality concerns raised by Hadger above. It is important that the rules really aim to encourage quality reviews and collaboration. I think a limit on the number of GA's reviewed at one time might make sense in this regard. Also, the idea of crediting secondary reviewers would encourage collaboration. How about 1/2 point for secondary reviewer based on nomination from primary reviewer? I am also a bit concerned about the 40 GANs award...how about reducing it to 30 (1 per day sounds crazy enough) ? -- Elekhh ( talk) 06:53, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
I don't have much experience with these sort of drives, but I'm a bit worried about a land-grab at the beginning. What is to stop someone from agreeing to 20 reviews all at once? Or is that allowed? If it is, its sort of like squatting. With 40+ reviewers and less than 500 articles outstanding, not everyone will be able to get that top medal (which is as it should be), but what's to stop the more ambitious from "staking a claim" by sitting on a lot of reviews? I'm hoping there's some sort of rule I don't know about that takes care of this concern...is there? ɳorɑfʈ Talk! 05:34, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
I'm just wondering about the rules- I currently have a few articles on review/on hold, of which at least one, Avril Lavigne will probably pass given another few days' work but probably not before 1 April. If I pass it after 1 April, can I log it here? I'm not after extra glory, but I am slightly curious because I can't be the only reviewer in that position. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 16:43, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
Another reason the drive should last longer is because it would be hard for someone to review 40 articles in 30 days, even if the person does review more than one in a day (because they would still have to pass or fail all of those articles). Isn't one a day enough work for a person? But either way, this is just a suggestion. I just think it would be pretty hard to review 40 articles in 30 (by the way, people would review 40 to get the "The Order of the Superior Scribe of Wikipedia" barnstar). -- Ha dg er 20:44, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
Since the elimination drive starts now (it's April 1 UTC right now), what do we do with the thing that says "The drive will start on 1 April 2010"? -- Ha dg er 00:02, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
Some reminders for everyone who are reviewing GANs (especially those people new to GA reviewing):
See Wikipedia:Good article nominations#How to review an article for all the instructions
{{
subst:GANotice}}
if you need a template.– MuZemike 01:42, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
OK, we're three hours in, and i'm already feeling like i'm going to be running around after editors, trying to keep content creators / nominators from thinking "WTF"? A reminder all: the goal is better articles. This is not achieved by upsetting editors who may have been waiting weeks or months for a review, only to find their articles failed without an opportunity to respond. I was going to join in the elimination drive as a reviewer, but I've changed tack: I'll be auditing reviews instead. Cheers, hamiltonstone ( talk) 02:06, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
I have started an audit list here: User:Hamiltonstone/GAReviews#Audits undertaken during April GAN backlog elimination. If an editor wants to check what's been looked at, feel free to check it out. hamiltonstone ( talk) 03:25, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
Some comments for the above:
– MuZemike 14:58, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
If anyone gets a chance, can someone please go through the list of on-hold GANs (those at Category:Good article nominees currently on hold as well as those additional ones marked as "on hold" on WP:GAN) and make sure they weren't abandoned? If you see one that's abandoned, please pick it up and review it. – MuZemike 16:22, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
Currently, this page says:
"There are 50 editors participating the April 2010 GAN backlog elimination drive, which means the following:
I get that the point of this is to encourage people to do a certain number of reviews, but these numbers are in all likelihood a gross underestimate of the number required to reach the two stated milestones, and may be damaging in the long run. Last year's drive saw 330 reviews reducing the backlog by 126 articles. The one before that saw 222 reviews reducing the backlog by just 49. The reason for this is because people nominate new articles as the drive progresses - rst20xx ( talk) 20:30, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
Regarding the original point (which is a good point), the goal statements would be correct if they said: "If everybody reviewed at least 9 Good Article nominations today, we would completely clear out the GAN queue." That doesn't make much sense, as it isn't possible, but it would make more sense to say "If everybody reviewed at least 9 Good Article nominations, we would completely clear out the GAN backlog." ɳorɑfʈ Talk! 01:55, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
Just a reminder that with the bot not working to update the nominations report (I have reported that), the reviews are not automatically transcluded to the article talk pages any more. I assume that the two things are comnnected. –– Jezhotwells ( talk) 15:22, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
Talk:Taare Zameen Par/GA1 → Started on 1 April but has not been acted on in a week. Can anyone pick up that review, please? – MuZemike 13:27, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
Talk:Murder of Huang Na/GA2 → Marked as "on hold" since 19 March and has had little action since. – MuZemike 18:17, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
Talk:History of liberalism/GA1 and Talk:Liberalism/GA1 → Both marked as "on hold" since 26 March, and both are under the same nominator; no action since. – MuZemike 18:17, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
Talk:White Stag Leadership Development Program/GA4 → Marked as "on hold" since 11 March; No action since 2 April even after for a request for status by Wizardman; probably needs someone else to step in and go over it again per [1]. – MuZemike 18:17, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
Talk:Production-possibility frontier/GA1 → Marked as "on hold" since 22 March; no action since 28 March. – MuZemike 18:17, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
Talk:Honest services fraud/GA1 → Marked as "on hold" since 7 March; there has been some action, but it likely needs someone to look at it again. – MuZemike 18:17, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
Talk:Coronation of the Russian monarch/GA1 → Marked as "on hold" since 7 March; no action since 25 March. – MuZemike 18:17, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
Talk:Delhi Metro/GA1 → Marked as "on hold" since 22 March; no action since 22 March. – MuZemike 18:17, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
Talk:His Band and the Street Choir/GA1 → Under review since 22 March; but it looks like there is some recent action still going there. – MuZemike 18:17, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
Talk:Avril Lavigne/GA1 → Under review since 27 March; no action since 30 March. – MuZemike 18:17, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
Talk:Ave Imperator, morituri te salutant/GA1 → Under review since 16 March; no action since 23 March. – MuZemike 18:17, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
Talk:BBC News/GA2 → Under review since 8 March; no action since 20 March. – MuZemike 18:17, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
Talk:New Mexico/GA1 → Under review since 20 March; no action since 28 March. – MuZemike 18:17, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
Talk:Illegal logging in Madagascar/GA1 → Under review since 15 February; no action since 5 March. – MuZemike 18:17, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
I'm reviewing a BLP and brought up a concern about notability. The nominator's response was "notability isn't a GA criterion." It seems awfully odd to me, to promote an article that I may be MfD'ing the following day. What should I do? ɳorɑfʈ Talk! 02:48, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
That is why, I did fail them, insufficiently referenced. The main semi-RS references provided wer reviews to the series on DVD sityes, with no mentions of the individual episodes or merely episode listings. –– Jezhotwells ( talk) 09:58, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
I reviewed Cosmos (book), and the person who nominated it doesn't seem to be paying attention to the review that much. The two errors that are left with the article seem to be ones that I don't know how to fix. Would it be appropriate to fail the article, or do I have to give it more time? -- Ha dg er 23:04, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
I was updating the statistics I keep, and thought you might like to see the effects of the backlog drive:
Quite impressive - well done all! Shimgray | talk | 12:57, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
Hi, I would like an opinion regarding the length of an article for GA. This has not been a problem until I came across This Time Around (Michael Jackson song) - Talk:This Time Around (Michael Jackson song)/GA1. The proposer says that no more information is available, and technically, the article should (eventually) comply to GA requirements. I can't seem to find any guidelines on this. If it fails, it will probably be on the grounds of not being focused enough. Does it deserve to fail on this (considering that is a fairly insignificant single from a big star like Jackson, and hence not much exists in terms of references), or is that unfair? Any thoughts? -- S Masters ( talk) 07:10, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
Who gets credit for joint reviews? For instance, GamerPro64 started a review on Super Mario Bros.: The Lost Levels but asked for a second opinion. I gave a second opinion and failed the article. Should it be listed under both of our names? Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ( Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 18:04, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
For those of you who
I am pleased to announce the Wikipedia Guild of Copy Editors Backlog Elimination Drive is starting May 1. There are over 8,000 articles with the {{copyedit}} tag, and about a thousand on the Copy Editors' request page. Let's see what kind of dent we can make in a month. ɳorɑfʈ Talk! 05:43, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
Okay, okay, I know the encyclopedia is the real winner here, but I just wanted to say thanks to the editors who reviewed eleven of my articles and promoted ten of them. Personally, I reviewed ten articles, so the net result of my backlog participation was negative: eleven articles added to the job load, ten articles taken under task. I didn't help the "backlog" exactly, but I helped something! ^_^
Binksternet ( talk) 18:46, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
My count for the total number of GANs reviewed during the GAN backlog elimination drive in April (counting those reviews picked by by others after being abandoned as one) at 661 – about 5 short of The Number :) – MuZemike 01:37, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
Putting some statistics listing what was accomplished during the GAN backlog elimination drive:
More coming when the last day's results come in. – MuZemike 02:10, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
Just a reminder to everyone to keep reviewing and finishing those GANs that have gone on after the end of the drive. We have counted them as completed reviews for the sake of the drive, but we will need closure on all of them, preferably within 1 week. That will help build confidence in those who nominate articles for GA that they will get reviewed expdiently and accurately. – MuZemike 06:18, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
Were barnstars actually given out? I didn't get one? boo hoo! ;) Matthewedwards : Chat 03:57, 29 May 2010 (UTC)