Wikipedia talk:Good articles/GAN Backlog Drives/April 2010

Awards?
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 say we should use the awards from the Spring 2009 drive. GamerPro64 (talk) 21:18, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
 * OK, that would be 5-10-20-40 with the barnstars being The Working Man's Barnstar, The Tireless Contributor Barnstar, The WikiProject Good Articles Medal of Merit, and finally The Order of the Superior Scribes of Wikipedia.
 * I'd also like to propose awards for those who complete the most GANs in the drive, for instance the top three. Any suggestions for that? –MuZemike 22:20, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't know. We only have 9 people signed up. Does that seem fair? GamerPro64 (talk) 22:23, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm about to spam all the project's members shortly (after my BRFA for my bot gets approved), so we'll probably get more people to sign up. –MuZemike 22:26, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Nice! GamerPro64 (talk) 01:18, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Just the top reviewer could work as well if we end up not getting that many. Wizardman  Operation Big Bear 01:26, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I seem to remember last year there was a real rush to begin with, and then when people reached 40, they just stopped. I think I hit thirty after two weeks, but never got past forty, having secured the Medal of Merit. The extra medals will help the most enthusiastic perhaps review the extra five or so. Arsenikk (talk)  22:44, 26 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)
 * Let's not make it too complicated, I think what is there on the project page is fine, but I must express my disappointment at the lack of automobile prizes. In fact I might have to reconsider joining in. –– Jezhotwells (talk) 10:28, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Rules
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)
 * Also, if someone really wants to start early, should we let the person start reviewing more articles today and let that person put the articles under the articles reviewed section of this project page? -- Ha  dg  er  02:52, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Multiple people reviewing one article happens rarely enough that I don't think it will be an issue; we can handle it when/if it happens. As for your second answer, it wouldn't be credited, but of course you can review articles now. Wizardman  Operation Big Bear 03:48, 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)
 * Good question. You folks want one? –MuZemike 21:17, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
 * that would be nice to have. I wouldn't want one, since I don't have and will never have a User name. GamerPro64 (talk) 22:15, 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 know how it is for others, but for me, I complete one GAN, pass it (very unlikely as I will likely always find something for improvement), fail it (also not very likely unless it was clear the homework wasn't done beforehand), or put it on hold. After I do any of that, I nominate another one.
 * My thing to stress for reviewers is to complete GANs as expediently as you can but at the same time be complete on them. When I've done some GA backlog clearing, I've always done the "two-pending approach". If I complete a GAN and place it on hold, I'll review another one right away. But if that is also on hold, I'll wait for a reasonable amount of time (normally we've stipulated about 7 days, but that's always on the reviewers' discretions provided the time to call it off is in the near future).
 * In a nutshell, at most, two GANs on hold at a time. That's why on April 1 we need to get started right away. –MuZemike 07:52, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I can happily work with that :)  The Flash  I am Jack's   complete   lack of surprise 05:03, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I will note that we had "two crazy people" last year who did 40 or more, so IMO that's about right. That last award should be hard to get. –MuZemike 08:07, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, but I'm not quite following you, MuZemike. Are you saying that you want to limit reviewers to having no more than two articles on hold at any one time? That is ridiculous. Quality reviewing is sometimes about giving a lot of feedback and sometimes you have to let more than seven days pass. The only way we're going to get the backlog down is if a lot of people review a lot of articles; this is mostly limited to the amount of time each reviewer spends reviewing. The follow-up time on "on holds" is fairly short (typically 10% for my sake, though it varies a lot), so limiting the number of reviews because you worry about "personal backlogs" doesn't make sense. I think we need to trust people here; I'm confident that anyone who is doing more than a dozen reviews in a month is surely going to be a quality reviewer, and can themselves determine the flow of the reviewing without artificial rules being imposed from this talk page. People who are going to "game the system" just need to select short articles, which are a lot less time-consuming to review, but give the same number of "points". Arsenikk (talk)  09:38, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Btw, Elekhh: if the top medal had been for only 30 reviews last time, I would have reviewed exactly ten less articles. Arsenikk (talk)  09:40, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm not trying to force any limit on anybody. That's what I usually do when I review a string of GANs and would hope others would do the same so we don't inadvertently leave any GANs on hold indefinitely (like what Wizardman has recently observed with about 10 GANs on hold that were plain abandoned). That's my bigger concern. Whatever much you want to do, just use common sense; take all you can eat, but eat all you take. –MuZemike 04:11, 30 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)
 * Nobody's going to be that fast to do a large number by themselves, believe me, especially when it's supposed to be: 'tag an article at WP:GAN for review, then review it, post whatever problems and/or pass/fail/hold, and then wash-rinse-repeat. There shouldn't be any wash-wash-wash-wash- ... -wash-rinse (a few times)-repeat (a few times) or similar. Besides, sometimes RL gets in the way, and if a certain GAN was tagged for review but nothing was done yet, there's nothing stopping you from either letting that person know you're doing it or that you've already done it. There shouldn't be and "land-grabbing" going on unless everyone starts at the same point (i.e. everyone tries to start on GANs that have sat the longest or something like that). –MuZemike 07:36, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I should add with that not everybody should be starting with the oldest GANs as that would flood everything. Stagger it a bit; have a few editors do some of the oldest, another few try and do some a week ahead of the oldest, do GANs on specific (oft-ignored) topics, etc. That will get more stuff completed than trying to jam in everyone to the front of the queue. –MuZemike 07:41, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I think we should, as far as possible, allow common sense to prevail. From what I've seen, I think we have a group of sensible-enough editors who can be trusted not to do anything too stupid. HJ Mitchell  |  Penny for your thoughts?   11:17, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Stupid question
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)
 * My impression is that reviews started on or after April 1 count for this drive, but other may see things differently. –– Jezhotwells (talk) 17:51, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Conversely, what about reviews that start in April but are completed after the drive officially ends (i.e. in May)? What have we done in the past regarding these cases? –MuZemike 20:32, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Maybe the drive should just last longer. -- Ha  dg  er  20:38, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
 * But you could argue the same situation with regards to the new end date; it could go indefinitely, but that would defeat the purpose ;) –MuZemike 20:39, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
 * You are right about that. I think we would clear more of the backlog if the elimination drive was extended to May, though. -- Ha  dg  er  20:52, 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)
 * As I noted in the above section, the last award should be hard to get. –MuZemike 20:48, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Oh. I understand now. -- Ha  dg  er  20:53, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

The elimination drive starts now
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 Good article nominations for all the instructions


 * 1) Don't forget to tag the article that you're reviewing on the WP:GAN page with GAReview (see instructions so that we don't get two people reviewing the same thing and wasting time.
 * 2) Don't forget to transclude the completed GA review on the article's talk page, i.e. adding Talk:Santa Claus Lane/GA1 to the bottom of the Talk:Santa Claus Lane article.
 * 3) Don't forget to inform the nominator on his/her talk page about your review. You can use if you need a template.
 * 4) Don't forget to log your completed GANs on the main GAN elimination drive page.

–MuZemike 01:42, 1 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Should the list of completed reviews be in alphabetical order by user for easy sorting? I've made a bold effort to do so with the few that are listed so far, but perhaps a hidden message saying how we would prefer to sort it would be helpful to those wishing to list their efforts. María ( habla  con migo ) 14:25, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep it by user (using the format provided on the main backlog page). List your completed GANs in chronological order with your newest-completed review on the bottom of your list. –MuZemike 15:06, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, I understood that much. However, my question is whether we should be sorting the list of users (with their reviews) by alphabetical order?  As in user:A Cool Dude (list of articles reviewed chronologically), user:B In My Bonnet (list), user:C U Later (list), etc., etc., instead of users simply adding him/herself to the end of the queue when they join.  I believe an alphabetical listing of users would make sense in the long run. María ( habla  con migo ) 15:15, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
 * If you folks want to do that, that's fine. I didn't expect such a large turnout for this backlog drive (this is probably the largest turnout of any backlog drive, but it's still only Day 1). –MuZemike 15:20, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

A shorter queue may be good, but better articles would be better
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)
 * Sounds good. Help out in whichever capacity you can. That will leave a couple of us more free time to review GANs and make sure they're done right. –MuZemike 02:17, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Anyone who is upset because their review gets failed needs to go read WP:FUCK again. For the one I failed, I specifically told the nom that as soon as the work is done, to renominate and I'd give it a speedy pass. Make sure you get consensus on your "powers of audit" or else let people know you're just stating your opinion when and if you take issue with their reviews. I also notice you didn't mention people passing unqualified articles as a cause for concern...just failing qualified ones. Are you going to be checking both ways? ɳorɑfʈ  Talk! 04:54, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
 * You're being pretty hard on other new editors, and that seems a shame given how new you are yourself. I don't have any "powers" - i will be following the same processes as any other editor if i find issues. And yes, i'm auditing for issues in 'both directions'. hamiltonstone (talk) 05:44, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
 * MuZemike said he'd have failed it too, and he's not so "new." I wouldn't say failing a GA that has multiple issues and will take significant time to rewrite is "being hard" on an editor. But we're all entitled to our opinions, and yours is just as valid as mine. ɳorɑfʈ  Talk! 05:50, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I think you're missing something: the idea of GA review is to help improve an article, not to have your personal fun failing it. Even articles with multiple issues can be fixed or improved within a week, which is considered reasonable time (if you read the GA Review guidelines). I don't think your review of the Go (game) article was reasonable in this regard. You could have waited for a feedback at least. Or was your 63 minutes review a 1 April joke? --Elekhh (talk) 06:09, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I think you're being presumptuous and rude to say that I was having "personal fun failing it." I think it will take longer than a week to fix. However, ff he fixes the issues today and relists tomorrow, I'll pass it tomorrow. I'm not the only person that thought a fail was appropriate. ɳorɑfʈ  Talk! 06:39, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I went back and checked the guidelines. I think what is under contention here is this: "Holds should be applied if the changes needed are minor, and can be reasonably expected to be completed within a week or so." As the reviewer, it was my judgment call, and I don't think the changes are minor or will be made in a week. So I failed it. ɳorɑfʈ  Talk! 06:58, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

I have started an audit list here: User:Hamiltonstone/GAReviews. 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)
 * I'd just like to say that I wouldn't be reviewing GAs today if an article I'd been working on had been quick failed, even though Hamiltonstone would have been quite within his rights (and must have had his patience wear very thin by the end of it!). It's not all about pass/fail- it's about getting the best articles and the best editors we can, albeit with limited resources. Myself, I've reviewed thirty-something articles and only failed one, though I could have failed many more. At least one of those nominators has since produced a very long list of GAs. That's what GAN is about. HJ Mitchell  |  April Fool!   14:41, 1 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Suggestion: How about a new rule of -5 points for reviews which do not meet the GA Review guidelines ? --Elekhh (talk) 06:13, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
 * You can't introduce new rules after a contest starts. Remember it for next time. ɳorɑfʈ  Talk! 06:39, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Some comments for the above:
 * First, not too be off-putting to newcomers, but if an article isn't up to GA standards and cannot be fixed within a reasonable amount of time, then it doesn't make it. As said on the main page, 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. → I emphasize the latter part; please tell the nominator, especially if he/she is still "green" what they did wrong and try to point them in the right direction.
 * Keep in mind that most of these GANs have sat around neglected for months now. I am quite aware that it sucks if after waiting that long that it does not pass for not meeting the GA criteria. They would have been reviewed more or less with the same result if someone picked up the review two days after the nomination or two months after the nomination. That's one of the messes we're trying to clean up, as nobody should have to wait that long to have a GAN reviewed.
 * Let's tone down on the condescending tone here. We're not accomplishing anything else by infighting.

–MuZemike 14:58, 1 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I agree with that last sentiment. I hope we can agree on this: that whether we quick-fail or put on hold, we need to offer a detailed and extensive explanation of how the article should be improved. Even if an article is a direct pass, comments about further improvement can be extremely helpful. It is easy to lose sight of this if we are too focused on number of reviews, so I would encourage everybody to think quality of reviews first, and quantity second.


 * Nobody gets a car anyway. Lampman (talk) 04:30, 4 April 2010 (UTC)


 * This a WP:GAN review not a WP:PR. It's function is to decide whether an article is compliant, and if so awarding GA-status; whether the article is close to meeting the standard, and if so, making an an assessment as to whether it is likely to to be brought up to standard in a reasonable time (and in that case putting the review On Hold and providing guidance on what is needed to achieve it); or, the article is not compliant, in which case GA-status is not awarded. WP:PR is an entirely separate process. Pyrotec (talk) 07:42, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm aware of the difference between WP:GAN and WP:PR, I'm simply reiterating what the WP:GAN page says: that whether you pass, fail or hold an article, you should detail what needs to be improved. Lampman (talk) 09:03, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Having said that, I fully agree that the purpose of the review is not antagonise nominators who have put a lot of effort into bring up an article to what they consider to be the necessary standard. Incompetent reviewing is a matter for serious consideration. Perhaps having these eliminations drives is part of the problem. If you wish to award and encourage reviewers to review lots of nominations, there may be consequences. Those who have been reading these comments for some time will remember the (mis)-reviewer who did (I think) eight reviews in one hour. It is certainly possible to do four good reviews in a single day; it is equally possible to one bad review in eight days. Past experience of these drives, shows that the drive does reduce the backlog, but it very soon creeps back up again. What is needed is a few more good reviewers, not "swings and roundabouts", i.e. most of the time its a two to three month wait, but during a reduction drive its 45 per day (or what ever the number currently is). Pyrotec (talk) 08:23, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

On hold GANs
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)

Number of required reviews is completely wrong
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)
 * If everybody reviewed at least 5 Good Article nominations, we would reach our goal of under 200 outstanding nominations.
 * If everybody reviewed at least 9 Good Article nominations, we would completely clear out the GAN queue."
 * Click on the "edit" link to view the wikitext- it updates itself, though that's as technical as my terminology gets with wiki markup! Besides, if we all keep reviewing, the backlog will go down quicker, though I'm putting a plague on the first person to overtake me! HJ Mitchell  |  April Fool!   20:54, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes - it counts the number of outstanding noms, (sometimes subtracts 200), and then divides by the number of reviewers. But the number of outstanding noms will not go down by the number of articles reviewed each day, it'll go down by much less than that, so this is a bad way of counting the number of reviews each editor needs to do - rst20xx (talk) 21:09, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
 * True, but it gives us something to think about and focus towards. HJ Mitchell  |  April Fool!   21:16, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
 * The math I used was basically, to clear the queue completely, #GANS / #Participants; to reach the goal of below 200, (#GANS - 200)/#Participants. In both equations, the ceiling function (built in the MediaWiki software) was used to round anything in a decimal up to the next number. Hence, if it seems it should be one less, that is the reason why. –MuZemike 21:22, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
 * You're not understanding what I'm saying! The calculation does not account for the fact that more articles will be nominated over the course of the month. And hence, for there to be less than 200 outstanding nominations by the end of the month, much more than 5 articles per editor will need reviewing - rst20xx (talk) 21:24, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Perhaps it should be noted then that it counts for "from this point forward, we have to do this much". I don't think there's much of a better way to count the way I think you're suggesting, unless somebody is willing to either do a bunch of math or write up some bot code. –MuZemike 21:31, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
 * You could simply add another 200 or so nominations to the required number as this seems to be about the number of nominations that occur each elimination drive month. Though changing it to say "this many more reviews" would make it completely accurate - rst20xx (talk) 21:35, 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)
 * I don't wish to be rude, but what is to be achieved by debating a minor point like this on some little-trafficked page when we could be reviewing GANs and actually reducing the backlog? HJ Mitchell  |  Penny for your thoughts?   02:24, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I would like to interject into this by stating that this whole conversation is really a moot point. The end goal of this contest is to reduce the number of GA's in the backlog but the REAL goal is to better WP with more GA's. IF users continue to generate GA noms as the contest progresses and we at the end have reduced it by 5 then so be it, it really doesn't matter WP still wins. As it stands know though the contestents are jamming out GA rviews at the cyclic rate and if this continues we are going to churn out a very large number of new GA's for the WP community.--Kumioko (talk) 02:30, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Good Articles aren't my primary interest on Wikipedia. So even if I wasn't here discussing this, I wouldn't be reviewing more. The conversation isn't a moot point, it just isn't of interest to you. There's a whole essay about erroneous "facts" in Wikipedia namespace. Although this particular instance is relatively minor, things that appear in Wikipedia namespace, while they do not have to be verified, should be factually accurate/correct. So to me, this situation represents a much larger, more important issue. ɳorɑfʈ  Talk! 02:56, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
 * If providing a more accurate (i.e. higher) number leads editors to contribute more reviews, then that would be better still - rst20xx (talk) 12:25, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
 * It's not really a problem, because the numbers are adjusted every time the editor count changes, as well as every twenty four hours, so it will become more accurate as we progress.

Bot down
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)


 * This probably has something to do with the toolserver IP being blocked (see WP:ANI). –MuZemike 15:29, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Just FYI, it's two different bots, run by two different users, that create the report and transclude the pages. However, the transclusion bot has also stopped working (see here), so this is really just a technicality. Dana boomer (talk) 15:37, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

(Likely) abandoned GANs
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)
 * The nominator says he's on a wikibreak. I'd say it might be worth allowing it another week and keeping an eye in it- perhaps prodding the reviewer on their talk page. HJ Mitchell  |  Penny for your thoughts?   13:37, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
 * That's fine. I'm just concerned about the review not being done as opposed to the nominator being on break. I mean, we can always keep it on hold until the nominator gets back. –MuZemike 13:46, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I have left a note at User talk:SBC-YPR about Talk:Taare Zameen Par/GA1, Talk:Tablighi Jamaat/GA1 and Talk:Anti-Hindi agitations of Tamil Nadu/GA1. –– Jezhotwells (talk) 14:33, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
 * There are almost no comments on the GAN pages, only an introduction of the reviewer. SBC-YPR's page has a busy notice too. It is best to make these articles available to review if there is no comments in more than 7 days and leave a note on SBC-YPR's page. -- Redtigerxyz Talk 16:17, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Got this message from User talk:SBC-YPR who says the reviews will be up at the weekend. –– Jezhotwells (talk) 17:40, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Nominations on hold for a while
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)
 * Left a note for the reviewer. Dana boomer (talk) 00:10, 12 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)
 * The reviewer appears to still be interested in this, see User talk:UberCryxic. Dana boomer (talk) 00:15, 12 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. –MuZemike 18:17, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Work is currently underway on this - the last post was April 9. Dana boomer (talk) 00:10, 12 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)
 * I think the reviewer may have forgotten to notify the nominator. I have left a note on the nom's talk page. –– Jezhotwells (talk) 12:23, 12 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)
 * Has been re-reviewed, recent activity. –– Jezhotwells (talk) 12:23, 12 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)
 * Nomination has been failed. –– Jezhotwells (talk) 12:23, 12 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)
 * Recent editing by nominator (April 9) –– Jezhotwells (talk) 12:23, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Nominations "under review" for a while
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)
 * It appears the article is being actively worked on, and there have been comments on the review page by both the nominator and the reviewer in the past few days. Dana boomer (talk) 01:55, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Talk:Avril Lavigne/GA1 → Under review since 27 March; no action since 30 March. –MuZemike 18:17, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Mine and being worked on, though not entirely on the review page HJ Mitchell  |  Penny for your thoughts?   01:42, 10 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)
 * I left a message for the reviewer - it looks like no one has asked him for a status update yet. Dana boomer (talk) 01:55, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
 * The reviewer is still on the job, see User talk:Work permit. Dana boomer (talk) 00:03, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Talk:BBC News/GA2 → Under review since 8 March; no action since 20 March. –MuZemike 18:17, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I left a message for the reviewer - it looks like no one has asked him for a status update yet. Dana boomer (talk) 02:50, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Mine. Nominator assures me progress will be made in coming days. HJ Mitchell  |  Penny for your thoughts?   01:42, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Talk:New Mexico/GA1 → Under review since 20 March; no action since 28 March. –MuZemike 18:17, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I left a message for the reviewer - it looks like no one has asked him for a status update yet. Dana boomer (talk) 02:43, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Reviewer is still on the job, see User talk:White Shadows Dana boomer (talk) 01:26, 10 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 left a message for the reviewer - it looks like no one has asked him for a status update yet. Dana boomer (talk) 02:50, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Reviewer has asked for a second opinion on a complicated renaming/scope issue - see GAN talk page. Dana boomer (talk) 01:26, 10 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I'll answer here since I have this on my watchlist and my response will likely be copied here. I am still watching the article but there's very little activity. I've been trying to cut the nominator as much slack as possible, but I'm going to poke them and fail it if there's no improvement soon. HJ Mitchell  |  Penny for your thoughts?   02:54, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Just making a minor comment that this is regarding the BBC News GA... Dana boomer (talk) 02:57, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Oh yeah, that might have been helpful. But hey, it's 4am and I've been clerking AIV for 12 hours! HJ Mitchell  |  Penny for your thoughts?   03:04, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I've also got Avril Lavigne, which is being reviewed and worked on, though not all the comments are necessarily on the review page. The nominator of BBC News, meanwhile, assures me that progress will be made in the coming days. I often pick articles that will require a lot of work to get to GA, so one shouldn't be too surprised when my reviews end up taking a while. HJ Mitchell  |  Penny for your thoughts?   01:42, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

GA's don't need to be notable?
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)
 * AfD it. Let the discussion run its course, if it's a "keep", review it, if it's a "delete" (or anything else) then there's nothing to review. Careful not to piss the nominator off too much, though! HJ Mitchell  |  Penny for your thoughts?   02:52, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Because of criteria 2 and 3 of WP:GACR it is de facto presumed that the article meets the notability standards when it comes before a GA nomination, and it should be considered notable if it is a GA. And no, being a GA doesn't exempt the article from not being notable, but I don't exactly think that's what the situation reflects. –MuZemike 03:12, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I have failed two nominations, The Art of the Sucker Punch and Lawn Gnome Beach Party of Terror, both individual ten minute episodes of US animated series, which were stubs dressed up with references to the whole series and a few one line listings in TV guides. Neither satisfies WP:NOTE and they should be merged as per WP:EPISODE. I have initiated merger discussions. It seems to me that very few individual episodes of TV series meet GA criteria 2 and 3, or the notability guidelines, and they should be proposed for merger or deletion. –– Jezhotwells (talk) 19:15, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
 * No offense intended, but this sounds dangerously close to WP:IDONTLIKEIT to me; you don't think a television episode warrants an article, so you say it doesn't satisfy WP:GNG. However, the WP:EPISODE guideline you cite clearly states a television episode can warrant its own page if a sufficient amount of independent, reliable secondary sources indicate its notability. Further, there are more than 530 television episode GAs. I'm not saying EVERY television episode warrants an article. I'm just saying you can't dismiss ALL (or even most) episode articles out of turn. It's a case-by-case basis. —  Hun  ter   Ka  hn  19:35, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Indeed, I could have phrased that better, I have indeed reviewed and passed nominations for TV episodes &mdash; but out of the millions of episodes from TV series out there, very few are notable. Whether or not individual episodes are substantially covered by reliable sources determines the notability, of course. –– Jezhotwells (talk) 22:44, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Understood. I guess I just get a little defensive, as I've written one or two television episode articles in my day. :D —  Hun ter   Ka  hn  23:59, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
 * In the cases mentioned above there was no substantial coverage by RS, just a few episode listings and reviews of the whole series, which often didn't even mention the individual episodes in question. –– Jezhotwells (talk) 00:41, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Notability is a criterion of every article (quote:"Article topics are required to be notable"), GAs included. In my view, it's not a part of the review process (although compliance to GA criterion 2 automatically guarantees notability), but the article is still liable to be AfD'd at any time. If you're concerned about failing it for notability, check instead if it has enough reliable sources - we eb il oo bi l  ( talk ) 07:30, 13 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)

Article On Hold for a Long Time
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 would fail it as it fails on criterion 3: Broad in its coverage. A month is long enough. The nominator acn work on it and renominate at WP:GAN. –– Jezhotwells (talk) 01:21, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Fail it, no-one is going to die as a reult. –– Jezhotwells (talk) 04:22, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I already failed it. -- Ha  dg  er  04:33, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Backlog graph
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)


 * Wow, cool graph! Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:40, 10 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I was quite thrown - the drop-off rate is so steep it's almost impossible to see on the long-term graph. We're down to a level that hasn't been seen for a year. Shimgray | talk | 14:03, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Opinion on article length
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)
 * There is no length criterion; indeed, the footnote to criterion 3(a) reads "This requirement is significantly weaker than the "comprehensiveness" required of featured articles; it allows short articles, articles that do not cover every major fact or detail, and overviews of large topics." As long as you feel the article covers the main aspects, then it passes that criterion - we eb il oo bi l  ( talk ) 07:43, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
 * OK, thanks for your answer. Was seeking some reassurance. :-) -- S Masters (talk) 15:02, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Joint reviews
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)
 * I think it's fine to place under both, but place a note under both entries so when someone does a total count, nobody ends up counting twice. –MuZemike 18:23, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
 * On a similar note, articles that have been failed have been renominated and then reviewed afresh, e.g Evan Bayh presidential campaign, 2008 and Alejo Carpentier (not re-reviewed yet, I expect that it will be). –– Jezhotwells (talk) 21:06, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
 * There are several articles that were "failed" and resubmitted. In most of these cases the articles have been modified taking into account the first review, so I would regard them as separate nominations, not double counting of the same review. I would suggest that, using the rules already in place, only in those cases where the first review was shown to be inadequate, should a review be discounted. Potentially, the case of a nominator refusing to accept a review which resulted in a non-pass result and resubmitting could (did) arise; and I would suggest that as long as the first review was "fair" and in accordance with WP:WIAGA, then both reviews should be counted as independent reviews. Pyrotec (talk) 21:24, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Regarding joint reviews and second opinions: who makes the final determination whether the article passes or fails, the initial reviewer or the person providing the second opinion? The GA instructions are vague on this point. –Grondemar 01:36, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
 * The GAN template says "the decision on whether to pass or fail the article should be left to the first reviewer" or words to that effect. If it's a joint review, I'd suppose either could close it, but the reviewer offering a second opinion should defer to the first reviewer, as I've done twice so far. HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?   01:38, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
 * HJ Mitchell is right. This might be somewhat unkind, but in a few of cases that I have offered a second opinion the first reviewer was either unwilling to make a decision or felt that he/she didn't have sufficient judgment/experience to make a decision (and that is a valid use of a second opinion). In the rest of the cases, the so called reviewer opened up the review to make comments (often at the specific written request of the Nominator) not to become the Reviewer, but did not understand that in so doing made themselves the Reviewer. Pyrotec (talk) 14:36, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Next Backlog Elimination Drive Starts May 1!!!
For those of you who
 * 1) couldn't get enough of the GAN Backlog Elimination Drive;
 * 2) want to pick up some more barnstars or other awards (some not available in the GAN drive); or
 * 3) want to get credit for clearing some of the GAN holds;

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 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)


 * Bad idea! Give it a rest for at least one month, or it is not a "drive", it is status quo. Binksternet (talk) 13:51, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree with Binksternet. Drives need to be spaced out, not running back to back. That's why we waited to implement the GA drive for a few weeks after sweeps was finished, and we generally don't have more than two GA drives per year. More than that creates reviewer fatigue. Dana boomer (talk) 15:08, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
 * This is a drive by a different WikiProject, and they have over 200 members themselves. Noraft was merely extending a friendly invitation here to see if anyone might be interested. I don't see anything wrong with that. 73 members/non-members out of 278 WikiProject Good articles members participated in the April drive. Some may be interested in something for May. My 2 cents. -- S Masters (talk) 15:35, 24 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Complaint withdrawn. Have fun, you crazy copy editors! Binksternet (talk) 16:24, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

My net effect = −1
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)
 * (WP:OWN aside regarding "my articles" xd) No, thank you for helping out. Even reviewing ten GANs helped the drive out very much. (I only reviewed 16 of them, so you're not far off.) If the net quality of the articles involved in this drive increased, then we know we've helped out the encyclopedia just that much more. –MuZemike 19:25, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Oh yeah? +5 net (6 reviews 1 nom) so in your face. Kidding of course :) It can also be looked as as you worked to elevate 10 articles to GA which is actually more beneficial to the project than something like the 1 I did! Fun times and glad I participated.Cptnono (talk) 22:50, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

We could not get several more GANs reviewed for The Number
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)
 * Curses! My plans were foiled! :3 GamerPro64 (talk) 02:10, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Final statistics
Putting some statistics listing what was accomplished during the GAN backlog elimination drive:


 * 661 total nominations reviewed: 541 passed, 97 failed, and 23 ended on hold
 * The WP:GAN page started at 110,126 bytes length on 1 April and ended at 43,387 bytes length at the end of 30 April (a 66,739 byte reduction in the page, about 60.6% less).
 * Excluding extremes, the longest wait for someone's GAN to be review was about 11.5 weeks at the beginning. (I mistook the figure when I reported to the Signpost that it was 13.) At the end, with the exception of one that was relisted, the longest wait is now at 10 days.
 * 63 different users participated, each having completed at least one GAN.
 * The drive started with 463 GA nominations remaining and 388 unreviewed. At the end of the month, we ended with 89 remaining (374 or about 80.8% less) and 47 unreviewed (341 or about 87.9% less).

More coming when the last day's results come in. –MuZemike 02:10, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Well done to everyone who contributed to the success of this drive and especial congratulations to MuZemike and Wizardman for co-ordinating. –– Jezhotwells (talk) 06:58, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

A reminder for those GANs still on hold
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)

Barnstars
Were barnstars actually given out? I didn't get one? boo hoo! ;) Matthewedwards : Chat  03:57, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I darn knew I was going to miss someone! Hopefully, I got it now. –MuZemike 07:37, 29 May 2010 (UTC)