Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Good articles/GA Cup/Scoring

Quick passes and quick fails- clarification request
Presumably, for a quick pass or a quick fail, the review must meet all of the listed criteria, not just any of them? Perhaps this could be clarified? Josh Milburn (talk) 13:28, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Another clarification that needs to be made: "All reviews must have been worked on only by you. If you take over a review that was begun by another reviewer, it can be counted towards your score, as long your review is complete." The two sentences literally contradict each other, unless there is a different meaning of "review" in each case. Josh Milburn (talk) 13:30, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure what you're asking. I clarified the language regarding the definitions of both quick passes and quick fails, but the second statement, about how only reviews worked on the competitor counts, seems clear enough to me.  Even if you take over a review that was begun by another reviewer, the review must still be mostly yours.  Can you make a suggestion as to how it can be better? Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 19:08, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
 * The sentence "All reviews must have been worked on only by you" seems to imply that reviews which have not "been worked on only by you" are not eligible for points, while the next sentence implies that you can "take over a review ... it can be counted towards your score"- clearly, however, if you "take over a review", it has not "been worked on only by you". So, is it the case that reviews which have not "been worked on only by you" are eligible for points or not? The first sentence seems to say yes, the second seems to say no. (Also, I still think the quick pass/quick fail thing is unclear- do only reviews which meet both criteria qualify, or do reviews which meet either criteria qualify?) Josh Milburn (talk) 20:21, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I went back and did some further clarification. Please look at it, and if it's satisfactory, would you mind removing the tag?  I think I see what you're saying about quick passes/fails.  Personally, I think that in order to be determined a quick pass or fail, you'd have to be guilty of at least one criteria.  I mean, you can be guilty of both, right?  I think it may be better to state: "For the purposes of the GA Cup, a quick fail/pass is determined if one or both of the following criteria is followed:"  I won't change it, though, until there's more consensus. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 20:52, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I'd be inclined to say that, sometimes, an immediate fail is appropriate without it being a quick fail. To pick out some examples from my own reviews, I'd lean towards saying that Talk:Royals (song)/GA1 and Talk:Goosebumps/GA1 are full reviews rather than a quick-fails, despite the fact that no chance was given for reviewers to respond in either case. In terms of how to advance; you could say that anything which meets the two criteria listed constitutes a quick-fail but allow that there may be some things which do not meet these criteria which are a quick fail, or you could give a rough account of what a quick fail is and rely on the fact that you'll know it when you see it. Off the top of my head, FWIW, I'd define a quick fail as "a heavily incomplete review which is nonetheless closed appropriately because the article grossly fails one or more criteria". A "quick pass" is not really a term I've come across before, but I have referred to "rubber stamp" reviews in which the reviewer just says "yep, this article's ready". While I agree that they should not be eligible for points, I do not agree that these are always inappropriate- just as quick fails are sometimes the right closes, occasionally, a rubber-stamp pass might be. (On a related note: "Nominations [presumably, this should be "reviews"] that are short in length are still expected to have some sort of comments from the reviewer; every article always has room for improvement" might be construed as contrary to the deliberately limited nature of the GA criteria. See What the Good article criteria are not.) Josh Milburn (talk) 22:32, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
 * There's a difference between reviews that easily pass, without very little comment, because they're complete and fulfill the GA Criteria before they appear at GAC, and reviews that are passed for other reasons, like cronyism (arrangements between editors to review each other articles) or to earn points in a competition. The judges have gotten really good at figuring out the difference, and rest assured, we will take action if we determine that a competitor is trying to cheat or game the system.  I went ahead and made the clarifications as suggested above, and added the phrase "rubber stamp review" to the quick pass definition.  When I submit articles to either GAC or FAC, I'm anal about assuring that they're as complete and as prepared as possible.  Not all editors have that attitude, and to my surprise, use the nomination process to get someone to help write their articles.  Personally, I don't think that's an appropriate use of the nomination process, but I've found it to be more common than the scenario we're both describing.  But thanks for your feedback here, and thanks for removing the tag. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 18:00, 30 June 2015 (UTC)