Wikipedia talk:Good articles/GAN Backlog Drives/July 2024

Question thread
If anyone has any questions about the backlog drive, feel free to ask them here. (I'm mostly making this post simply to de-redlink the talk page.) -- asilvering (talk) 18:08, 26 June 2024 (UTC)


 * I do have a question, actually. I'd like to participate, seeing as I'm relatively new to reviewing. How will we go about getting feedback from more experienced editors? Do they take a look at reviews at random, do we have to mention the experienced editors who have signed up, etc.? Thanks in advance! The Morrison Man (talk) 20:41, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Once the drive gets started and editors start claiming reviews, I'll put a list up on the main page of the drive so that experienced reviewers have an easier time finding the reviews that need a check. So, assuming that works (we haven't ever done a backlog drive quite like this before), you don't need to do anything. But if you want to set up a partner in advance, or if you want to get a specific reviewer to help you out, here are some ways you could find one:
 * go through the normal process at WP:GAMENTOR
 * make a thread on this talk page asking for help or for someone to check over your review
 * send a ping or talk page message to a particular reviewer you'd like to ask for help (but please only do this if you have some prior indication that they're interested, so people aren't getting pings out of nowhere)
 * If you get really stuck, contact a co-ord and we'll try to sort it out. -- asilvering (talk) 02:27, 27 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Actually, I'll just go ahead and post a placeholder list right now, no reason that needs to wait. -- asilvering (talk) 02:28, 27 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Thank you for letting me know! The Morrison Man (talk) 11:09, 27 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Probably a dumb question, but I began my fifth GA review recently but the nominator says he won't be able to get to it until 3 July; when it's wrapped up, will that count as a point for the drive or no? ThaesOfereode (talk) 12:31, 27 June 2024 (UTC)
 * If the review already started before 1 July, and you already left some comments there, then no, the GA review does not count. Vacant 0  (talk &bull; contribs) 13:56, 27 June 2024 (UTC)
 * To clarify, do quick fails receive any points or no? Also is it possible to put any articles “on hold” until the July 1st date? Dr. Swag Lord (talk) 20:37, 27 June 2024 (UTC)
 * In previous backlogs, quick fails did receive 1 point if they were valid. I do not think that there is a definition on what a valid quick fail is, though. I might be wrong. If you've already started a GA review before 1 July, it won't be counted in the backlog. Vacant 0  (talk &bull; contribs) 20:56, 27 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Thanks. In your opinion, how would you deal with an article where the majority of the sources are primary, unreliable, or WP:QS? Dr. Swag Lord (talk) 21:27, 27 June 2024 (UTC)
 * @Dr.Swag Lord, Ph.d I would quickfail it. If there are simply many questionable sources, I personally would do a fuller review than a quickfail. But if it's a majority? No. That is "a long way from meeting the GA criteria", so explain your reasoning, quickfail it, and move on. -- asilvering (talk) 22:50, 27 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Agree. Vacant 0  (talk &bull; contribs) 18:15, 29 June 2024 (UTC)
 * To second that, yes, QFs are still reviews and still get points, provided that they are eligible in the first place - see the guidelines on minimum quality, constructive criticism, etc. You don't need to write an essay, but the nominator should be able to clearly understand what actions they need to take to get the article to resubmittable quality.
 * To take your "majority of sources are unreliable" example from below, if that's all you say, that's probably insufficient for the editor to understand, since we can presume that they believed the sources were reliable when they nominated the article. This is a quickfail I gave for an article that had that problem (among others). I was very brief, but I did give some pointers rather than just saying "unreliable", eg: Many of these sources are simply working off articles by other newsrooms; many articles I checked have no byline. In my opinion, this is about the minimum required. -- asilvering (talk) 22:57, 27 June 2024 (UTC)
 * @Asilvering, thank you for your detailed reply. I agree that a majority of low-quality sources should result in a quickfail. I intend to give the nominator a detailed rationale. Dr. Swag Lord (talk) 23:15, 27 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Hey is it too late to sign up? Kimikel (talk) 14:01, 1 July 2024 (UTC)
 * No, you can join at any point of time. Vacant 0  (talk &bull; contribs) 14:02, 1 July 2024 (UTC)
 * @Asilvering@Vacant0, quick question: once a reviewer surpasses 5 reviews, are they reclassified as an “experienced” reviewer? Dr. Swag Lord (talk) 20:32, 6 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Experienced is 10+ (there's some space in between for "newish at this but probably doesn't need help"), but yes - anyone who gets up to 10+ reviews during the drive can assist newbie reviewers if they feel confident enough to do so. -- asilvering (talk) 02:32, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Got it. So after 10 reviews, are we still required to get the GA reviewed by someone else? Dr. Swag Lord (talk) 04:57, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
 * You only need a buddy for the first five. After that, you're on your own, unless you call for a second opinion! -- asilvering (talk) 16:06, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
 * @Asilvering (and others), we chatted before about articles sourced predominately to questionable sources. But how would you deal with a biography (or any article for that matter) sourced predominately to primary sources? Minus a few instances, the primary sources aren’t used for anything too controversial (ABOUTSELF statements or the subject’s views on XYZ, etc.) but obviously articles should be based on reliable, secondary sourcing. I feel like this would impact the neutrality and broad in coverage criteria too. Dr. Swag Lord (talk) 06:02, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I don't know that I'd make a blanket statement about all bios and primary sources (articles on academics in particular tend to be sourced to primary sources, ie, their work), but when it comes to a good article I'd be looking for more secondary sources. This one might also be a case of the writer using primary sources because they're seen as the most authoritative for statements about the person. Not a quickfail situation (in my opinion, anyway), but something to query. You might want to skim those secondary sources yourself to see if there's anything that seems missing from the article (for broadness concerns), or if there are any hints that the use of primary sources has created a npov issue. -- asilvering (talk) 17:02, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Got it, that makes sense. What if after doing a basic check, one uncovers that there are a plethora of secondary sources available that the writer failed to incorporate? Wouldn’t that impact broadness? Dr. Swag Lord (talk) 18:02, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Absolutely. And at that point it's at your discretion whether to fail the article outright or not. Since holds are supposed to be for a max of seven days (ok, ok, they're usually much longer in practice...), a rule of thumb you can use is "could someone fix this up in seven days"? You also want to keep in mind that GA requires "broad", which is lower than FA's "comprehensive". Nothing major should be completely omitted, and if there's an omission that serves to misinform readers by its absence, that's no good either. But it doesn't need to include everything, and even major sources can end up in "Further reading", depending on what they are. In my opinion, it's best to be generous here, since articles can sit waiting for reviewers for a long time and it's a real bummer to have someone fail your article over problems you feel you easily could have fixed with a little time. However, I would fail the article outright if the sourcing appeared negligent - for example, I've reviewed (for AfC, not GAN) an article on an academic before that was pretty extensive, but totally failed to mention that he'd been involved in several high-profile research ethics investigations! -- asilvering (talk) 18:11, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
 * @Asilvering@Vacant0, per WP:QF crit 4, a review can be quick failed if “It is not stable due to edit warring on the page”. What do you recommend to do if a page is not stable for other reasons, such as frequent vandalism? Dr. Swag Lord (talk) 18:57, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Frequent vandalism is fine if it's being reverted, though you might want to suggest page protection at WP:RPP. The "not stable" QF is there not so much for an article quality sake as a "sanity of the reviewers" sake. If the article is changing so much that you can't do copyedits without triggering edit conflicts, or your review comments are going stale minutes after you write them, there's simply no point in doing the review, so you QF it. -- asilvering (talk) 20:19, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
 * That makes sense. Thanks for the response! Dr. Swag Lord (talk) 01:11, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

I've just finished my sixth review, but only 2 of my other 5 have been closed (they have all been checked by experienced reviewers). Am I qualified to close my sixth review when the comments are addressed, or do I have to wait for all five of my other reviews to close? Kimikel (talk) 01:33, 13 July 2024 (UTC)


 * @Asilvering et al Kimikel (talk) 03:26, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Yes, your first five reviews have all been reviewed by assistants, so you can close/pass your sixth review on your own. Vacant 0  (talk &bull; contribs) 10:59, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

Legacy coord
I'm not able to join you in coordinating this drive, but please ping if I can answer questions or help out! (t &#183; c)  buidhe  04:06, 29 June 2024 (UTC)


 * Thank you! -- asilvering (talk) 06:40, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

Matching new reviewers with mentors
The instructions don't actually specify the steps in between a new reviewer completing the review and the mentor agreeing to look over the review. It currently says If you have completed a review and want to close it, but no experienced reviewer has joined in, please post on this drive's talk page and say so, but that seems to imply there's a system for experienced reviewers to "join in" that doesn't exist, unless mentors find a new reviewer by chance. The instructions also sound like they're allowing but discouraging the use of WP:GANMENTOR for this drive. Are all new reviewers supposed to post to this talk page after finishing? If so, the instructions should say that explicitly. And even then, this doesn't give any guidance for mentors to find these reviews, let alone a way to make sure we don't have a bunch of new reviewers slipping through the cracks until the end of the drive. Also, when is the new reviewer expected to request a mentor? Before putting it on hold, or after the nominator has already responded to the new reviewer's comments? The big ugly alien ( talk ) 22:51, 1 July 2024 (UTC)


 * @Thebiguglyalien, the instructions are written that way because I was worried about overpowering the goodwill of the editors who had signed up for WP:GAMENTOR but had decided for whatever reason not to participate in the backlog drive. There is a list on the drive page for newbie editors to place links to their reviews if they haven't had any help from an experienced reviewer yet - it's just empty right now. I'll do another pass on the guidelines right now to try to clarify things, give me a moment. -- asilvering (talk) 23:10, 1 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Alright, done. Do you think that's sufficiently clear? New reviewers won't (or shouldn't) be slipping through the cracks until the end of the drive because co-ordinators will be checking off reviews as they go. Regarding the when, that's up to the newbie reviewers - I assume that some reviewers will want help immediately and others won't want anything other than a check-over at the end. If that or anything else starts to present some glaring problems though, we should change it. -- asilvering (talk) 23:39, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

Do I need to close a failed review for it to count?
I am a new reviewer. I failed a GA nomination (No Culpes a la Noche) and left it in the list to be reviewed by a more experienced reviewer; it was checked and removed it from the list. Is there anything else left to do? Jaguarnik (talk) 02:59, 5 July 2024 (UTC)


 * Nope. It's all good. Vacant 0  (talk &bull; contribs) 12:00, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
 * An update: the reviewer who assisted me received their point, but I haven't received that point. Jaguarnik (talk) 02:28, 6 July 2024 (UTC)
 * You do need to finish the review, yes. If the experienced reviewer gave you the all-clear, time to fail it (alas). This tool makes it easy. -- asilvering (talk) 07:59, 6 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Ah, nevermind, I see you did fail it, and the nominator just immediately renominated it. So yes, you're done. -- asilvering (talk) 08:02, 6 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Ah, another thing - it shows that I have completed 5+ reviews, but my first reviews ever were done in this GA backlog drive. There's some kind of error. Jaguarnik (talk) 16:21, 6 July 2024 (UTC)
 * It looks like you've been raising the number yourself? I'll put it back to 1 so you get the proper 2-point credit for your other reviews. -- asilvering (talk) 02:39, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
 * My mistake, I wasn't aware that reviews should be raised by coordinators. Thank you for your prompt response! Jaguarnik (talk) 02:55, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

"Graduated" reviewers
Thanks to everyone who has participated in the backlog drive so far. I'm starting this thread off for appreciation of our newly experienced reviewers. Thanks for joining in at GAN! And thanks also to the experienced reviewers who helped onboard these no-longer-newbies.

5+ reviews
(Congrats! Go ahead and close your reviews yourself from here on out.)

10+ reviews
(Congrats! If you're comfortable doing so, feel free to help out less-experienced reviewers.)

asilvering (talk) 18:48, 7 July 2024 (UTC)


 * By the way, @Dr.Swag Lord, Ph.d, multiple experienced reviewers have said they've been impressed with your reviews, so I've awarded a bonus point. Grats again! -- asilvering (talk) 18:50, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
 * That’s very kind of you, @Asilvering! Dr. Swag Lord (talk) 19:25, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
 * @PearlyGigs, it looks like I misread GA bot/Stats earlier and you were actually at 4 reviews when you started. So you've got your bonus point for the fifth review now, and it looks like you were actually our first "graduate". Sorry! -- asilvering (talk) 19:45, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

Talk page notice to those who signed up
Hi! @Asilvering and @Vacant0, I propose we drop a talk page notice on the pages of those who have signed up but not yet participated. I did this (example) during the last GA backlog drive, and several folks appreciated the reminder and came to start reviewing. It's halfway through the month, so I figure it's the right time for a boost! —Ganesha811 (talk) 17:36, 15 July 2024 (UTC)


 * Yes, please do! I've also got some lists of potential newbie reviewers to send invites to. I didn't want to send out cold-call-type messages earlier when we had a backlog of reviews needing assists, but now that things are more under control I'll go through those lists and see who's active this month and might be interested. -- asilvering (talk) 03:04, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Done! —Ganesha811 (talk) 13:24, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Ok, I've had a Health Event this week and am running on even less energy than usual (I'm fine now! just very, very tired), so if you or @Vacant0 would like to contact some of the reviewers on the lists here, that will hopefully bring in a few more newbie reviewers and I'd love to get it off my to-do list. I think the first list (people who have done at least one review in the last 24 months, but still haven't done a total of 5 reviews) is the one to target first. -- asilvering (talk) 19:58, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Will jump in. Vacant 0  (talk &bull; contribs) 19:59, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Thank you! - asilvering (talk) 20:02, 18 July 2024 (UTC)