Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2014-09-24/WikiProject report

A year and a week, and about 2060 Good articles later, we're back with some of the members of WikiProject Good Articles, who wanted to share the news of their upcoming contest within the project, the GA Cup. The aim of this friendly competition, which is held in the same light friendly manner as the WikiCup and the Core Contest, is to reduce the backlog of unreviewed articles at Good article nominations which has been a constant problem for quite a few years for those running the GA process. It is scheduled to begin next week on October 1st, and anybody who thinks they can help out is encouraged to sign up before the deadline, October 15. Of course, this is the first actual GA Cup to be held, as an attempt to make a difference to the huge backlog after several unsuccessful backlog drives. Here to tell us more are the Cup's organizers and WikiProject Good Articles members,, , , and.



'''What motivated you to join WikiProject Good Articles? Do you review featured articles as well?'''


 * Figureskatingfan: I joined the WikiProject because I too was concerned about the huge backlog. Six months to wait for a review!  Also, I figured that if I was going to submit articles for GA review, I needed to do my part by reviewing them myself.  In other words, how could I expect another editor to review the articles I submitted without reviewing some myself?  I reviews FAs, but not as often, since there's not nearly as serious a crisis there as there is at GAN.  There seems to be a strong community of reviewers over there that simply doesn't exist at GAN, and that's unfortunate.
 * Dom497: I honestly don't remember how I first heard about Good articles but I do remember that after I nominated a few articles and saw the ginormous backlog, I decided to try out a review. As I continued to review nominations, I stumbled upon the WikiProject and figured I would participate in the Backlog Drives. At that point I became a member of the WikiProject with my goal being to help reduce the backlog in any way I can. Today I don't review that much, rather I brainstorm with other users possible ways to get rid of the backlog (and one of those "ways" is the GA Cup...mainly thanks to Figureskatingfan!). In terms of Featured articles, reviewing those have never really interested me. It's a completely different environment over there and I'm not ready to cross that bridge. Will I someday cross it? Maybe. I just have to see where my future goes.
 * NickGibson3900: I joined WikiProject Good Articles because I nominated two articles for good article status and I noticed how big the backlog was. I must admit, my first few reviews were only to increase the chances of my articles been picked up quickly. I hardly ever review featured article candidates but do have a few on my watchlist and I check in often to see what is up for review. In the future I may start reviewing featured article candidates as well if I see some that are in my favourite areas.
 * TheQ Editor: When surfing Wikipedia one day, I noticed the term "Good Articles" and wanted to get some article to the statues. I explored deeper into it and ended up at the WikiProject. I wanted to improve some articles to GA status but I would need to know what the review process was like. A few other reviewers helped me learn the process and how to review. I made some friendly wikipedians over the course and I was hooked just after a couple of reviews. I don't review featured articles though, typically because their backlog isn't extremely high and the criteria is just too strict. But I may get started reviewing those in the future too.

'''The Good article nomination process has been known to have a large backlog. Why is this?'''


 * Figureskatingfan: There are several reasons for the backlog. We haven't been able to develop a strong GA reviewer culture.  At FAC, you can only submit one article at a time, while at GAN, you can submit as many as you want.  I understand why, since only reviewer is needed at GAN and there are more potential GAs than FAs.  However, I think that if more GAs were passed, more articles would be eligible for FA.  I also think that reviewing articles can be intimidating, and since less experienced editors tend to work on articles eligible for GAs, they tend to not review as often.  However, once you get your feet wet, reviewing GAs can be fun!
 * Dom497: Reviewing Good article nominations is not like reviewing a DYK. GANs require the reviewer the take a more in-depth look at the article. This includes making sure the article meets all Wikipedia policies, the prose is written well, images are licensed correctly, all the references in the article are reliable ones, and so on. Because of this, a new editor typically won't be able to complete a GA review right off the bat. To a certain extent, there is some learning involved; several essays and guidelines have been written by various users over the years to make the "learning" stage easier. But back to the question, because it does take time to understand all the aspects of what makes and article a Good article, people can easily get intimidated, scaring them away from reviewing nominations. As a result, we don't have that many reviewers and the rate of which nominations are submitted are much higher than the rate of which nominations are reviewed. In the last six months, the backlog has reached an all time high and continues to increase. This is where the GA Cup comes into play.

What exactly is the GA Cup and its purpose?


 * Figureskatingfan: The GA Cup was created for the sole purpose of encouraging editors to review articles at GAN. Its main goal is to decrease the huge backlog at GAN.  It's our hope that it encourages more people to review GAs, thus creating more high-quality articles in Wikipedia, which is everyone's ultimate goal.  The backlog at GAN is a huge problem that we must find a solution for, and we thought that making it fun would help us reach our goals.  Points will be awarded based on how long an article has languished in the queue, the length of the review, and the length of the article itself.  In other words, the harder an article is to review, the more points you can earn.  We also hope to develop a community of GA reviewers, similar to what they have over at FAC.

'''What are the project's most urgent needs? How can a new contributor help today?'''


 * Figureskatingfan: For the purposes of the GA Cup, lots and lots of competitors! We want our inaugural year to be successful, so that we can do it again!  And of course, the more articles you review at GAN, the better, whether or not you choose to compete.
 * Dom497: We need more reviewers! Just because this report is focusing on the GA Cup, that does not mean that to review articles, you need to participate in the competition. Reviewing articles outside of a competition setting is one of the better ways to learn.
 * NickGibson3900: Our main problem is obviously our massive backlog. We only have a handful of regular reviewers and having more is most definitely welcome and wanted. If users don't feel like doing a full review, they can choose an article from the good article nominations page and do a copyedit or check the copyright status of the pictures or another thing that the user is particularly interested and talented in.

Is there anything else you'd like to add?


 * Figureskatingfan: I'd like to reiterate what Dom says above: be WP:BOLD and get your feet wet! I promise that it only takes one review for you to be hooked.  You'll discover that it's not as hard as it seems, and you'll help another editor improve his or her articles.  Recently, I've learned how really important it is to gather a community around us here in Wikipedia, to help us achieve our goals and to protect us from the not-so-supportive side of Wikipedia.  Helping other editors by reviewing their articles will make that happen.  You'll make connections and make the world a better place by helping your fellow editors improve articles. As Dom also says, there are lots of folks around who are more than willing to help.
 * Dom497: Everyone should know that reviewing nominations is not as hard as it sounds. Yes, there are articles that deal with more complex topics but there are a bunch of articles that have easy to understand topics. I encourage everyone to review one nomination. If you like it, review another one. If you still like it, review two more. A good place to start is here and click on the links under the "See also" section. You can even go to the Help Desk and ask for someone to mentor you for your first couple of reviews. When reviewing an article you may even learn something about its topic that you never knew before! Also, if you are interested in participating in the GA Cup, sign-up here!
 * NickGibson3900: Just because getting an article to good article status seems hard to achieve, doesn't mean you can't achieve it. Along with reviewing, WikiProject Good articles encourages users to write articles that can achieve good article status. Pick a topic you enjoy writing about and starting writing. Getting an article to GA isn't as hard as it seems.
 * TheQ Editor: Reviewing Good Articles could be fun! It's not very serious or strict. Just be WP:BOLD and try to review one. Don't worry about making a mistake, think of it as double checking it against the criteria. You may even meet and make friends with other editors. The GA cup brings regular reviewers back and invites new contributors to help with the project in a fun way. If you happen to know any editor that may be interested in the GA cup, tell them! The more reviewers the better!