Wikipedia talk:Good articles/GAN Backlog Drives/July-August 2007

Barnstars

I think the listed requirements for barnstars are pretty low... at least compared to those of Biography assessment drive. There, 3000 reviews yields a Working Man's, (yes I know they're easier, but not that much)! Just my thoughts. -- Rmrfstar 23:41, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

They're a good deal easier there, yes. But you must remember that in the last drive, you needed 5 for a GA medal of merit, so it's definitely an upgrade! See the original at User:Nehrams2020/GA_reviews#GAC_backlog_elimination_May_23-June_13.2C_2007_.28Completed.29 Giggy _U^CP 23:55, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

In the biography drive though a quick editor can assess two or three articles a minute. Here a full review might take ten to twenty minutes, even longer for the long ones - Ive spent almost an hour on one before so I think 5 is a good number for a barnstar. This assessment drive is a good idea but theres a big gap between 10 and 25 - why not add a barnstar at 15 and 20? A lot of people might give up at ten, thinking 25 is a lot more to go? LordHarris 00:15, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

I doubt they will...I think the incentive will make them work harder towards 25, not give up because it's too hard. I'll be doing that, to the best of my ability. Giggy _U^CP 00:51, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Well I will too! LordHarris 00:54, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes, but 25 is nigh on impossible as there aren't enough articles to go round anymore. Anyway, it shouldn't be done for the petty distinctions. Mouse Nightshirt | talk 02:12, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Not to mention some of these articles are being promoted without adequate review. Nominations are going up at GA/R (by me) already. Am I correct in assuming that one will lose credit for the review if the article is delisted? LaraLove 06:33, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

It would make sense, yes. Mouse Nightshirt | talk 13:19, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

It appears that quite a few editors are mainly interested in this drive primarily for the barnstars, as I notice a significant overuse (abuse?) of the GAReview tag. Some editors are tagging multiple articles and coming back to them several hours, or even days later; particularly some editors who have a rather high review count on this drive's page. While I think the backlog elimination drive has overall been successful in reducing (eliminating) the backlog on WP:GAC, I think it's had a rather nasty side effect of increasing the competition among editors to the point of abusing this GAReview tag to hog articles for themselves so that they can get their barnstars. The GAReview tag should preferably only be used to tag an article that you're currently reviewing, so that another editor doesn't step in during that process. It shouldn't remain attached to an article for longer than, say, 5-6 hours, IMHO. Dr. Cash 19:06, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

I'd say this a problem of success - you offered incentives so people went for them. They also went about doing what they like to do - preferable edit articles they are interested in so they booked those in advance, in some cases more than usual! So definitely there has been some abuse of the GAreview. I second User:Tim Vickers suggestion on GAC talk page that if a GAreview tag has not been acted upon for a time (how much, to be decided by consensus), remove it and, very important, post the original tagger about it. In a few cases, personal circumstances may delay certain reviewers. Specifically, in my case, slow working habits, working offline, super-slow internet, long downtime of internet supplier and inability to use AWB or other bots on that regard, cause delays in my work to appear which give reason to wikipedians in the West with broadband that I have forgotten about the tagging. It may be that conditions in the West cause natural assumptions about how fast or in what manner people should respond, but a very small fraction of us are present too despite problems in communication that we face. In good faith! AshLin 20:14, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

I think this has only been a major issue with one reviewer. One that I've not seen on GAC before. I am one to tag an article of interest in advance. But I don't think I've ever had more than two articles tagged for review at the same time. And, like AshLin, it sometimes takes me a few hours to a day to get the review up for the same reasons she listed. That and I do really thorough reviews for most articles, which takes time and I typically don't post until they are complete. But I, too, agree with Tim Vickers that it is inappropriate to tag multiple aricles for review all at once. There should be a limit. And I also agree that there should be some sort of time limit. If an article is tagged as being reviewed but no review appears, say after 48 hours, that the review can be taken over by another reviewer. Past that, I also question the quality of reviews from reviewers pushing out a large number of reviews in one day. Lara♥Love 04:42, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree the points mentioned. However, we cannot change the GAR system simply because there's this drive happening at the moment. While I think limiting # of reviews definetely improve the quality of the reviews, this is not an official policy and hence people can simply ignore or completely disregard it then we would made a rule that nobody will follow on. I stay neutral on this suggestion. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 08:14, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

I may be one of the editors accused of leaving review tags on too long, but in my defense, I would like to mention that I have chosen to review some of the longest articles (often 50 kb of prose). Since I read the articles several times through and compose careful reviews, this can take me more than a day. I would argue that the editors of the article are better served by my careful reading and thorough reviews than by someone who tags the article and reads it in 15 minutes. Obviously, though, if an article goes unreviewed for four or more days, I would agree that there is a problem. Awadewit | talk 18:31, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Pass/Fail vs. Hold

I'm a little bit concerned that only "pass" or "fail" counts as a review. I almost always put articles on hold first and it is the review that I do for the hold that is extensive and time-consuming. I am worried that the awards system might encourage editors to pass and/or fail instead of hold, simply for the sake of the contest. Awadewit | talk 03:43, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

This doesn't mean that articles put on hold don't count. Every single article I have reviewed has gone on hold before I passed or failed it. If the article stays on hold and an editor passes it, that counts, if they have to fail it for failing to meet the criteria, the review also counts. Continue to put on articles on hold as you see fit and do count your reviews that you have performed. --Nehrams2020 03:56, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Could we just make that a little clearer? Perhaps mention that "holding" is not discouraged or something? Awadewit | talk 04:09, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

I made a mention of it at the bottom. --Nehrams2020 04:15, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

I've listed an article that I only placed on hold (didn't pass/fail yet). Hopefully this is ok. Giggy _U^CP 04:44, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't see any problems with it. As long as you keep up to date on the updates (does that make sense?) and you don't leave it on hold forever, you should be fine. Passing and failing gets the candidates out of the reviewing stage, and that's what this drive is for. --Nehrams2020 05:19, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Just make sure that you follow up on the holds. Message the major contributor(s) of that article. If after 7 days there's no improvement then fail the article and update its status. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 14:03, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't see any problems with it. As long as you keep up to date on the updates (does that make sense?) and you don't leave it on hold forever, you should be fine. Passing and failing gets the candidates out of the reviewing stage, and that's what this drive is for. --Nehrams2020 05:19, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

But please, please, oh pretty please, I hope that "getting the candidates out of the reviewing stage" is not just what this drive is for! Because my concern is that editors, in the race for these pretty little Wikipedia tchotchkes, would forget that the Good Article review process is a means for sponsoring editors to gain insight on ways to improve articles. These insights may not be particularly obvious to the sponsoring editors because they've become accustomed to self-reviewing an article in a habitual way. Yet third party reviewers with fresh perspectives discover ways to make decent articles really good. But when a reviewer determines that a candidate article is decent but not quite on target, he or she needs a little time to analyze where a sponsor's blind spots may be and compose a thoughtful, useful review (the extensive notes required by step 5 of How to review an article). Those extensive notes, to my mind, constitutes much of the value that the Good Article review process contributes to the encyclopedia at large.

Now I am aware there are quick pass/fail circumstances: an article is so astoundingly good that a reviewer can only write 'Wow!', or that an article is so incredibly bad, a reviewer can only write 'Uh...'. But over a run of articles, many will neither be entirely failing nor entirely passing, and it falls to the reviewer's lot to put those extensive notes on the article talk page. I am heartened, at this early stage of the drive, that some reviewers entering this contest are writing reviews in two or three thousand character range, or more, but I'm also concerned that a few reviewers seem to be spending little more than fifteen or twenty minutes on an article and producing two or three hundred character reviews that reflect little critical content beyond WP:ILIKEIT/WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Case in point: in the last few days Super Nintendo Entertainment System was awarded GA, and the sponsoring editors are now taking it to FA. I hope they get it; the article reflects a great deal of work, and, in my opinion, the article is structurally sound and very nearly GA. There are just these flyspecks. I noticed unsourced industry analysis in the first paragraph of the history section ("Nintendo executives initially showed little interest in developing a new system, but Sega and NEC's growing market share with consoles like the Mega Drive and the TurboGrafx-16 soon forced Nintendo to reconsider") Since when are Wikipedia editors allowed to read the minds of Ninetendo executives? Or comment on market dynamics? The article also reflects, in just a few places, prose uncharacteristic of dispassionate editors with neutral points of view ("The system was so phenomenally popular...", "...the Super Famicom effortlessly outsold its chief rivals..."). These are all sandpapering problems, so easy to fix once someone points them out, and I, for one, am very glad that GA reviewers in past times have pointed out similiar sins in my prose, originally missed because I am so enamored with everything I do. I think that, in this particular case, the GA reviewer could have spent a little more time in critical review, taken the time to put the article on hold, and asked the sponsors to fix up a bit before waltzing through the FAC gauntlet.

Come mid-August, when the Wikipedia tinsel gets handed out, I very much hope that the reviewer who wins the top prize does so on the basis of twenty to twenty-five sets of extensive notes. For if it is otherwise, with the top slots going to reviewers who routinely do little more than check-off {{GAList}}, then I think the backlog would have been eliminated at the price of cheapening the GA process, and the tinsel would truly represent little more than user page clutter. Take care — Gosgood 17:56, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

I mentioned getting articles out of the reviewing stage with similar intent as you have stated here. I'm not asking people who take part in the drive to just glance over an article and automatically pass/fail it (unless it needs to be quick-failed for certainly not meeting the criteria) just so the backlog goes way. We are hoping that this drive gets more people to become more involved with the process and introduce new people in reviewing articles. We are certainly going to see some reviews that are not up to par, but that's why the rest of us are here to help assist, so the reviewer can improve in their reviews. And for every incomplete review, we are having many more that are done properly. As long as we make sure we pay attention to each other's reviews, we can continue to make sure everybody is on the same page. As we get more experienced and dedicated editors who assist in the reviews, the backlog is less likely to keep getting overwhelming. Thanks for pointing this out so that all reviewers to take notice, as we are all here to improve the quality of articles on Wikipedia. --Nehrams2020 18:09, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

I would say that such quick reviews are a problem at GAC. That was one reason I got involved. Of the eight articles I myself have had at GAC, none have received thorough reviews. Two received a few comments but the rest received either nothing or a single sentence. As six of those went on to become FAs, I would appreciated any help (I am the sole editor on most of these articles). I have found peer review much more helpful than GAC when it comes to matters of substantial article improvement. Since I found the reviews I received at GAC lacking, I decided to do some reviews myself to at least help other people out. I don't know what the general experience has been, but mine has been rather poor. Awadewit | talk 18:24, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Regarding about the Super Nintendo article, I have placed an asterick on the project page a few hours ago because I spotted the reviwer and realize he (I assume a male) never done GA review before (and not doing the review properly). Even though he left a message on the article's talk page saying that he approved it, I still find it lack of proof that he actually read the article and check against the criteria. I pointed this out and left a note on that user's talk page, yet he continues to do things his own way and completely ignored my message. Right now I hope he'll do better on his next article, but even if he ignores us, I don't think any one of us can do anything about it aside from reverting his reviews. Rest be assured, the co-ordinators will read through all the reviews to make sure that they're in fact worthy and satisfy to be a GA. Any that doesn't meet the criteria will be put back to B-class. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 19:10, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Thank you all for your responses; if a good many reviewers leaving the gate understand that quality matters in this contest, and if the contest organizers support quality over quantity, then I'm not going to panic. I'm aware of the backlog pressure and have read the threads at GAC talk concerning process change. Frankly, I think more people need to be engaged in the process; that the process itself is reasonably decent, but, uh... understaffed. I'll certainly join in: Sauropelta was my first review and reflects the level of effort I prefer to give. This means I won't blaze through five articles a day or limit reviews to fifteen minutes, (unless the candidate article is so poorly done). I'll probably be one of your slower reviewers, but, fortunately, nobody is keeping me to a deadline. Take care — Gosgood 22:21, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

I would just to like to give my two cents to the discussion. Firstly I think that although there is nothing wrong with "thouroughness" in a review (in fact the more the better) I do think (after looking at some reviewed and of some Ive had myself) that some editors go to far when suggesting improvements to GA (especially during the on hold time). By this I mean they try to go beyond WP:WIAGA and even suggest changing the grammar, prose, references to style that they prefer. I would like to point out the notes section which I find relevant to some comments made here:

• 1. ^ Although the entire Manual of Style should be followed, it is not completely necessary at this level.
• 2. ^ Unambiguous citation is best done through footnotes or Harvard references at the end of a sentence (see the inline citations essay). It is highly recommended that the article have a consistent style of footnoting. Articles one page or shorter can be unambiguously referenced without inline citations. General statements, mathematical equations, logical deductives, common knowledge, or other material that does not contain disputable statements need not be referenced. Articles whose topics fall under the guideline on scientific citations should adhere to the guideline.
• 3. ^ It is generally acceptable for good articles to contain a small percentage of sources with borderline reliability; however, most sources should be reliable.
• 4. ^ This requirement is significantly weaker than the "comprehensiveness" required by WP:FAC; it allows shorter articles, articles that do not necessarily outline every part of the topic, and broad overviews of large topics to be listed.

Im all for making articles the best of the best but I do have to wonder if some reviews done with the project might be done faster if the reviewer paid a little (not absolute) attention to these notes and tried not to get the article to FA level but rather GA... Why am I saying all this? Well at the moment i've got the highest review count and I did review six articles in one day (albeit over three hours). The articles I reviewed (please look on the article page) contained nothing that I could see that disqualified it at WP:WIAGA and my comments were only a paragraph or two for those that passed with suggestions for improvement. One article however I placed on hold contains a detailed list of things that need to be addressed. The article itself took only twenty minutes to review and to locate the problems for improvement. I do not feel that quality or the depth of a review is sacrificed by doing a review quickly (though I wouldnt consider 20 minutes a quick review). 10 to thirty minutes is IMO an adequate time to conduct a GA review in all but the longest or most controversial articles. No doubt some of you disagree with my little statement here but I think I should let you all know where I stand. I might be a faster review but Process is Good. Thanks! LordHarris 11:44, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

I did start to look at your reviews, as you invited us to do. I'm not overwhelmed. You passed But I'm a Cheerleader and it has no "Themes" section. That's like a novel page with no "Themes" section. And you said it was ready for FA without a "Themes" section? Ridiculous. Awadewit | talk 12:18, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Firstly I think a themes section is not necessary for GA and I think in all but a few exceptions it often counts as original research. Take a look at the films in the film section of Good articles there are a great many without a themes section. LordHarris 12:28, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Seriously? What is it with people? I have had this conversation many times before. It is a long, drawn out debate; I often convert people. :) Themes are the "meat" of stories. Plot: Adam and Eve eat an apple from the Tree of Knowledge. They become mortal. Themes: temptation, sin, eternity, mortality. What is more interesting? The bit of fruit or the epic battle between good and evil? A tiny example, but you get the point. And why would it count as original research? Most film critics mention a film's themes in their reviews, so one could draw on film critics for modern movies. There is a lot of scholarship done by film scholars that could be used for movies that are older than five years or so. I see no theoretical problem, only a problem with the editors over at the film project, frankly. Awadewit | talk 12:56, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Also, this is precisely the kind of poor reviewing that I have come to expect from GAC (and why I joined, as I said above): I have reviewed the article and found it to meet all GA criteria. To improve I cant really think of much except the addition of visitor numbers, if this data is available. Good work. - That's all you could offer the editors? They slave away for hours, days and weeks and get this? Awadewit | talk 12:18, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Look at the article itself, I could find no areas for expansion aside from the inclusion of visitor numbers. LordHarris 12:29, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Even if the article cannot be expanded, writing can always, always be improved. Awadewit | talk 12:56, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

On one page, Raising of school leaving age, you left no comments at all about why you failed the page. I'll just stop there, I think. Awadewit | talk 12:18, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Well it appears youve been the one to speedily make a review this time. If you actually pay attention to the review and the talk page comments made by myself you will find that the article was split into two. See Talk:Raising of school leaving age in the UK. I didnt clarify this on my user page but if your going to give such a review as you had, you should at least check to see why there were no comments on Talk:Raising of school leaving age. My actual review of Raising of School leaving age was thorough and took quite a long time - the nominator was himself very thankful about all my comments that were made. I wont ask for an apology as its a simple mistake but I think we would both do best to walk away and take a wikibreak from this. LordHarris 12:28, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

The thing is, the link leads to an article that has a blank talk page (except for a template). What was I supposed to think? I did apologize for this on my userpage, but I'm not really sure how the mistake could have been avoided. There were no clues that there was a more extensive review anywhere else. Awadewit | talk 12:56, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Hey no problem. Just for future times Talk Page guideline states "When describing other people's contributions or edits, use diffs. The advantage of diffs in referring to a comment is that it will always remain the same, even when a talk page gets archived or a comment gets changed." Best, LordHarris 13:28, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

• "the prose is clear and the grammar is correct" - If an article is rife with grammar mistakes, I will not pass it. That is an unacceptable face for wikipedia to put to the world and claim "this is a good article". If I see only a few, I will fix them myself.
• "it complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, jargon, words to avoid, fiction, and list incorporation" - This is actually a fairly long list of regulations, if you look at them carefully.
• "cites reliable sources for quotations and for material that is challenged or likely to be challenged, preferably using inline citations for longer articles", so, no it is not generally acceptable for good articles to contain a small percentage of sources with borderline reliability. Again, do we really want wikipedia to be claiming that its "good articles" are only, kinda well-researched? How ridiculous.
• "It is broad in its coverage. In this respect, it: (a) addresses the major aspects of the topic" - The problem I usually find is that not all the major aspects of a topic have been covered. I have rarely objected on the level of depth, not really being sure how much depth is required. What I do object to is when whole sections are clearly missing (e.g., "reception" from a novel article).

Why do you care about speed? I thought we were aiming for quality. I have rarely seen a GA article at FA level (if ever). I don't think reviewers are trying to do that. Most of the reviews I do take about an hour or more (I read lots of long articles, I guess), but I also try to make detailed and careful suggestions to the editors per Wikipedia:Reviewing good articles. I reword my suggestions before I post them to try and make them as clear as possible. Awadewit | talk 12:03, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Firstly I dont care about speed in the sense that we should race through articles and finish them at the sacrifice of GA - I was just replying to the other comments made about speed and how "some users" review articles too quickly, which of course my reviews fall into. Im not saying we should sacrifice quality and I didnt say that articles should be kinda well-researched or that they shouldnt comply with any of the manual guidelines - all I said was that these notes exist and I often think that we forget that they do. They are not absolute and quite rightly (they are notes) - a kinda referenced article isnt worthy of GA (and ive never passed one as such). If you look back at my comments I wasnt arguing for going through articles hap hazardly and paying only attention to the notes (and not the actual criteria) but rather that there is nothing wrong with reviewing an article in under an hour. Just as there is nothing wrong with taking an hour to review it! LordHarris 12:16, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't see any point to rush through even if your goal is to win awards. The drive lasts for a whole month yet you only need 25 reviews to win GA Medal of Merit. That's doing less than 1 review a day. We are looking for quality reviews, not quantitive. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 16:18, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

I second this. As little attention as GA/R gets, we can't have a bunch of shotty reviews. We'll have nominations for delistment, re-reviews for fails without reasons and fails without holds. It should be quality, not quantity. LaraLove 06:41, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Thank you, LordHarris for digging up Electrawn's Process is Good essay; I was looking for that the other day. I recall having read it but couldn't remember the title. Senior moments; I suppose I should get used to them. The essay brings to mind the problem of Analysis paralysis; In a nutshell: the squirrels become so involved in writing up process specifications for gathering nuts that they never actually gather nuts; over the winter they starve to death. Moral: If the process hampers product, chuck process. Likewise, if the process becomes its own product, chuck process.

The same maxim could be applied to the whole Good Article Nomination and Review process. Who needs it? All of it? The reviews, the backlog elimination contests, the pretty little green cross tchotchkes, the anguish over whether the Good Article Nomination process is Really Any Different from the Featured Article Nomination Process -- heck, lets just take one of these process dogs out to the back of the barn and shoot it. I say GA: Awadewit drops eight articles into the GA hopper and doesn't get 'boo' for feedback. Shooting FA leaves a hole on the main page. Dammit, Shoot GA: No more backlog. No more GA/FA angst. Simplifies Wikipedia internals, per Process is Good. Hell in a handcart! Where's my trusty Springfield? Somebody get that dawg and the thirty-aught-six cartridges, and let's get this over with.

Didn't do it.

Didn't do it because, in the end, the pretty little dog looked at me with big brown eyes and said, "of the ten articles that passed FA this week, seven went through the GA process, six passed, and the one that didn't had difficulty on just the grounds that the GA reviewer cited." Not a bad piece of barking for a dog, if you ask me. And the little pup's point is well made. Like it or not, Many editors use the GA nomination process as a part of the FA preparation discipline. If the part of the product of the GA nomination process is to furnish feedback for Featured Article hopefuls, then so be it. The question is, 'How much?' Lanky gave the briefest of blessings to Kingdom Hearts; didn't mess around with a whole pile of words like I might have, and the review only had one serious oppose. Maybe Lanky has a good eye for feature article material and sees no reason to be verbose when all that he wants to say is 'good job.'

To my mind it comes down to personal standards. I've made money out of writing for much of my adult life, and from practice, I guess, I just see a lot of things. So I succumb to the urge to remark on the matter when people use a pair of commas to set off a nonrestrictive clause when the discriminating properties of a restrictive clause conveys the author's intended meaning. (I have SlimVirgin to thank for this example). I happen to get uncomfortable when an article I'm reading drifts off-topic. It's an automatic reaction; I can't stop myself from having it. So I try to characterize to the editor the direction and extent of the drift. It's a neigborly thing to do. I assume they can't see it because they've become accustomed to their own writing and can't see flaws anymore (I certainly suffer from similar critical fatigue when I've gone over my own writing enough times). I assume, then, that one of the reasons people throw articles into the GA pipeline is that they want to have another editor give them a critical opinion. So, dammit, that's what I give. It is the way that I like to add value. This gives rise to long reviews from me, and, for my own standards I wouldn't have it any other way. So far, nobody has complained to me that I've given too much feedback. In the end, If I get one of those silly little awards (I doubt it; I work too slow), I'll look on it with some pride because I earned it according to my own standards. If I compromise my standards just to do a lot of reviews, then the award becomes tinsel and I wouldn't care if it was for five, fifty, or five hundred reviews.

I don't think it is productive for me to comment on other reviewer's standards or reviewing styles. However, I do think that this contest has established a useful testing ground for GA reviewing. Many of the passed GA articles will go down the pipeline and become Featured Article Candidates. As noted, like it or not, many editors use GA for FA prep. GA reviewers should monitor how 'their' articles fare. If the articles they've certified as 'good' frequently run afoul of FAC review, fail, and engender FA reviewers criticism of GA standards, then the GA reviewer has some soul-searching to do. Conversely, if their reviewed articles consistently pass through the FAC process without serious issue, then they won't need a barnstar to tell them that they're doing a good job. Take care — Gosgood 18:24, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

July 1 or July 11?

Do you really mean that any reviews we've done since July 1 count for this drive as well? Awadewit | talk 10:34, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes, at first I want to be simple and only count anything that starts on today, but Nehrams2020 asked me to revise it so that any reviews done before July 1 are eligible. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 13:57, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Are we sure July 1st is ok as Ive just added another half dozen reviews that I did earlier in the month? LordHarris 21:20, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes, please do. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 15:05, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

WP:GA/R

Lol...no credits for removing bad GAs.....Blnguyen (bananabucket) 06:00, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

What do you mean? Can you tell us more in details? OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 07:56, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

As in it only applies to articles which are up for promotion and not suspect GAs that need to be reviewed for demotion....Blnguyen (bananabucket) 08:01, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Interesting. Why don't such reviews count? Editors still have to read the article and determine its "GA-worthiness". Awadewit | talk 08:05, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Cause the goal of this drive is to reduce the backlog of Wikipedia:Good article candidates, not Wikipedia:Good article review. Otherwise this drive focuses on too much. Besides, the backlog is not cleared. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 14:46, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Two things is too many? Awadewit | talk 15:00, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Cause technically GAN and GAR are 2 different things. It's more appropriate to start another drive for GA review and delisting. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 15:36, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

{unindent) The backlog at GA/R is only a few articles. I think there is a total of 12 currently listed (give or take a couple). The backlog at GAC is almost completely gone, if you can even call it a backlog at this point. Additionally, GA/R has very few consistently active participants and we could use the extra help. At this point, I think GA/R reviews should count. Anything to get people there and interested. Not to mention that this GAC drive has caused the promotion of several articles that do not meet the criteria. That's going to further back up the list at GA/R. Regards, LaraLove 06:30, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

I took a look at the backlog page and esimate that there're around 20 articles left that has not been reviewed yet. This # doesn't include the most "on hold" articles. There're many ways to keep yourself occupied. One is to improve the articles listed "on hold". Another is to find your own favourite category and look for articles that you believe will make it to GA status. It's ok to be the same person to nominate and review the article as long as you're not a major contributor to the article. Just make sure that no matter how much you liked about the article, it needs to meet ALL GA criteria before it can be promoted to GA. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 19:10, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Is this in response to me or someone else? My to-do list is longer than my intestines, so I'm good with keeping myself occupied. My concern is the backlog at GA/R which gets practically no attention from anyone. 12 might not sound like a lot, but when you consider many have been sitting there for weeks waiting on responses and that many have/will default out for "no consensus" because no one can be bothered to contribute, it's kind of sad. We're supposed to have at least six recommendations per nom to process. So if we can just get three or four people over there and interested in long-term participation, we'd be set. LaraLove 05:31, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

GA reviews with concerns

The following is a list of articles where an editor runs into a GA review and raised concerns about the review (such as no fair-use rationale, reference problem despite the reviews claims that there's no issue). Feel free to add the concerned review to the bottom of the list. Don't forget to sign your name (but with a ~~~ instead of ~~~~) ^{Quality reviews and comments by Lara♥Love}

• Super Nintendo Entertainment System - OhanaUnited^{Talk page}  Done Reviewed the whole thing, THEN realized it was FA.
• Union Pacific Railroad (FunPika) - OhanaUnited^{Talk page}  Done
• Atlantic City, New Jersey - OhanaUnited^{Talk page}  Done
• Cretaceous–Tertiary extinction event - AshLin  Done
• UEFA Euro 2004 - LaraLove  Not done
• Shelton_Benjamin - LaraLove  Done
• Raëlian beliefs and practices (Thedagomar) - OhanaUnited^{Talk page}  Question: I'm not sure about the appropriateness of the main image. Also the inclusion of book with ISBN in body.
• NLRB v. J. Weingarten, Inc. - OhanaUnited^{Talk page}  Done
• Seton Hall University (Derek.cashman) - Dr. Cash  Not done
• Dr. No (film) - Awadewit | talk  Question: I don't normally review movie articles, so I'm not entirely sure what all to look for that's specific for this topic of article, however, I do question the templates on the promo image and lack of source. Article failed.
• Waitoreke - Dr. Cash - Article quick-passed by the primary editor and nominator after two GA Reviewers failed it. I delisted this article immediately after reading the delist nomination at WP:GA/R. I have posted a detailed time line on both the article talk page and the GA/R archive. I've also left a brief warning on the editor's talk page. Lara♥Love 19:31, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
• Digital radio in the United Kingdom (Lord Harris) -  Question: I cleaned up most of the issues, however the CAPS titles for references needs to be corrected.
• Mario Andretti - (Lord Harris)  Question: The use of piped links for years.
• Renewable energy commercialization in Australia (Giggy) -  Question: The dates in the references need to be linked for user preferences. Additionally, there needs to be the addition of access/retrieval dates.
• Elvis Presley (Giggy) -  Not done Dates need to be linked for user preferences. The placement of punctuation in relation to closing quotations needs to be corrected per WP:PUNC. Placement of inline citations needs to be corrected. Article needs additional wikification. Prose and use of punctuation needs to be corrected in places. Use of dashes needs to be corrected per WP:DASH. Fair use rationales for copyrighted images need to be corrected per WP:FURG. Image of stamp (I have that stamp!... getting side-tracked) and boxed quote need to be moved to avoid sandwiching text between images per WP:MOS. Redlink ISBNs need to be corrected. References need to be correctly formatted. Note: I'm taking this on as a personal project. Over the next couple of days I will begin correcting issues, otherwise, I would have nominated this one for delisting at WP:GA/R.
• National Ignition Facility (Shoyrudude555) -  Question: Needs additional inline citation at the beginning of the article, I believe. This was also pointed out by the reviewer. The references also need to be formatted per WP:CITE.
• The Undertaker (Flubeca) -  Not done Currently at GA Review. Current consensus: Delist.
• Antonio Ricaurte (Flubeca) -  Not done Misplaced and unformatted references, dates not linked for user preferences and not consistently formatted correctly, possibly under-cited, prose needs to be improved.
• Victoria Cross (Canada) (Flubeca) - Article was put on hold by Flubeca,[1] then taken over by Tarret and passed 43 minutes later.[2] Nine minutes later, Giggy pointed out an image issue,[3] After a couple days, Tarret posts a brief message about why he took over the review (although he posted it to he wrong editor).[4]

  This needs to be dealt with. It was inappropriate and undermined the reviewing editor who had a better grasp on the criteria... such actions also undermine the project. {[done}}

• Red Auerbach (SFGiants) - Copyrighted images lack fair use rationales, reference formatting needs to be corrected, I also feel it is under-sourced.  Done
• 2007 Major League Baseball All-Star Game (SFGiants) - Copyrighted images lack fair use rationales and I feel it is under-sourced. Quote doesn't have source. Reference #6-9 are actually not references.  Done
• Israeli West Bank barrier (SFGiants) -  Not done Contains a fact tag, has unreferenced quote, reference placement and spacing if off in places, references are not formatted at all (some have been left as numbered external links), typos and missing punctuation, date wikification needs to be corrected, articles listed under "See also" are mentioned in the body. This article is a mess. Reference dates on #74-78 needs to be changed.
• The Lord of the Rings Strategy Battle Game -  Question: External links in the body of the article, references need to be complete and consistently formatted, and it has a trivia section.

Delisted GA

The following articles are articles that are promoted to GA in this drive, but unforunately now delisted as their problems are too much for casual editors to make it back to GA standard. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 15:03, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

• Undertaker
• Antonio Ricaurte
• Union Pacific Railroad
• Victoria Cross (Canada)
• Red Auerbach
• 2007 Major League Baseball All-Star Game

Note: More will be added to this list as reviews continue to take place

Idea for what to do when drive is over

What might be interesting is to look at the data and do a little light statistical analysis on it; since we have a COMPLETE set of GA noms and results for an entire month. It would be neat to see what % of GA noms pass or fail in a given month... --Jayron32|talk|contribs 04:02, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Good idea, I'll be willing to do it when the drive is completed. --Nehrams2020 04:39, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Good work

I'd like to say how much I've enjoyed and learnt from this drive. The community has got through nearly 400 reviews in about six weeks with very few dubious attempts and I believe it's made a real, positive difference. Not only in clearing a backlog but in encouraging other editors to spend the time in reviewing the efforts of their peers. On a personal note I'd like us all to continue to encourage editors to push articles to GA and take pride in reviewing articles in a personal fashion. The Rambling Man 19:38, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Awards

Since no one has given them, I was bold and am now awarding them. Could someone please give me mine? It would be bad form to give it to myself, so I am asking. The format I am using is{{subst:The Working Man's Barnstar|Thank you for your participation in the [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Good articles/GA nominees task force/GAC backlog elimination drive|GAC backlog elimination drive]]! ~~~~}}. ¿SFGiДnts! ^{¿Complain! ¿Analyze! ¿Review!} 20:50, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

I would be happy to do so. Cheers, Corvus coronoides _talk 21:13, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Nevermind. Epbr123 already did. :P Cheers, Corvus coronoides _talk 21:16, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks to both of you! I would also appreciate it if you did the GA Awards of Merit. ¿SFGiДnts! ^{¿Complain! ¿Analyze! ¿Review!} 21:18, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

I'll do the GA Medal of Merits. Epbr123 21:23, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Done. Epbr123 21:32, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

My apologies for not handing out awards. We first have to check to make sure that the reviews meet GA standard. Moreover, I was on a trans-Pacific flight so I was out of touch with the rest of the world for a day. I admit I picked a wrong day for the drive's deadline. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 03:28, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Sorry Ohana. I suppose I should have posted something when the drive ended. It didn't occur to me that anyone but the coordinators would start handing out awards. And I must admit, I was a little confused when I got my award so quick. Are we stripping people of their awards if the quality reviews reveals they did not adequately review articles? Lara♥Love 13:38, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

I for one wouldn't mind giving up my award if my work was unsatisfactory... but to that end can you strip of awards? Cheers, Corvus coronoides _talk 19:53, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Hehe, I'd just cross out my award's text and put "this is wrong. I'm not so great" on the page instead... "no! no! not my award! *cling*" David Fuchs ^(talk) 19:56, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Sob, I did my best... The Rambling Man 20:01, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Golden Wiki Award

Silver Wiki Award

Bronze Wiki Award

I don't think you can strip someone's award/barnstar unless both parties are willing to remove it. Frankly, I dislike handing out awards prior to the end of reviews, it just looks like a jump-the-gun action. On the bright side, there will be special awards to be handed out after reviewing the reviews. (Yes, we purposely keep everyone but the coordinators from knowing this part to ensure quality, not quantity, reviews.) The best reviewers will receive Golden, Silver or Bronze Wiki Award. There will be 1 person receiving Golden, 2 people receiving Silver, and 3 receiving Bronze. We won't be handing these ones out until we checked all reviews. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 21:20, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, it would be great if it didn't matter... If everyone that received an award had earned it. However, we're not so fortunate. As barnstars can't just be deleted from user pages, the best we can do is alert the editor(s) that, unfortunately, their efforts did not earn them the award. If they choose to keep it, it's their decision. Personally, I wouldn't want a barnstar that I didn't earn. My awards mean something to me. Of course, I guess it will reveal something about their character should they keep it. With that said, I'm requesting the support of the coordinators to inform said editor(s) of their failure to earn the award. Lara♥Love 04:52, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I agree with Lara. Hopefully, though, we won't need to withdraw any awards. Giggy ^Talk 05:08, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

What I am saying Giggy, is that there is a need. There are editors who received awards that shouldn't have. How to approach this is not certain as it's never a happened before. Lara♥Love 12:31, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

I personally don't mind having any award stripped; as I've said before, I did the reviews to get them done, not for the award. I notice someone has gone ahead and given me one. I've also noted that one of my articles is starred. I therefore think that someone jumped the gun a bit. Mouse Nightshirt | talk 14:52, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Sorry Lara, didn't read that well. In that case, we do what was said above. We tell them there award wasn't deserved, we ask if they'll give it up, and we leave it. Up to them. Giggy ^Talk 07:33, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Or we could ask them to do some reviews to make up for it? Epbr123 18:29, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Ok, I'm encountering some difficulties with delisting GA that are promoted as a result of bad reviews. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 00:23, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm attempting to take the heat for it. It was my recommendation. Lara♥Love 06:37, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Oops. This is all my fault, isn't it? ¿SFGiДnts! ^{¿Complain! ¿Analyze! ¿Review!} 03:33, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

That would be an affirmative. There are two messages on your talk page from me for which you appear to have ignored. LARA♥LOVE 06:16, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm sure you acted in good faith, but it appears to be an issue... but question: when will all the quality reviews be done? I ask because I appear to be one of few people with a relatively small amount of reviews without some sort of mark by my name. Cheers, Corvus coronoides _talk 22:46, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Pretty soon. Sorry for the delay. I've got a 5-year-old starting school tomorrow, so this past week has been a lot of getting things ready and such, not a lot of Wikitime, and I needed a little break from article reviews. I did over a hundred last week. I had to take a few days. I'll get back on it this week. No definite answer, but I'd say probably will be done by Friday... maybe sooner with the 5-year-old hellion out of the house. :) LARA♥LOVE 03:32, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

And I was off to a 3 days and 2 nights camp. Right now I'm catching some sleep so it was a unproductive week. I'll start working on tomorrow, but please bear with us as some editors completed many reviews so we're going to finish where we left off before going to other editors. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 04:12, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't really see the rush. You good reviewer folk, take your time! The Rambling Man 06:38, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

I didn't mean to rush you, I was just curious. Thanks for all your work! Cheers, Corvus coronoides _talk 00:40, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

OK, here's a statement in my defense. I am unfamiliar with contests such at these, therefore, I may have acted rashly, but it was in good faith, lest we forget. The same argument applies for my GA reviews. However, I do not think LaraLove acted in complete good faith toward me. After leaving a message on an older thread which I did not notice, she acted rudely to me in not-so-subtly questioning whether I used my talk page, simply because I was not on Wikipedia very much between those two messages. When I read it, I only ad time for a cursory query, which she again responded to fairly rudely. Later, she gave a scathing editor review. Consider this section:

Prematurely handing out awards without even attempting to contact the coordinator or anyone else involved with running the project has caused an issue that has never before been experienced in Wikipedia, and has subsequently diluted the value of barnstar awards.

I seriously doubt that this is true, and even if it is, I was acting in good faith, as I have stated earlier. I realize that this page isn't supposed to be a preliminary Evidence section for an RfAr, and I'm not attempting to label LaraLove a troll, but I feel like I've been bitten. In my 2+ years on Wikipedia, this is one of the few negative experiences I've faced—not enough to make me leave, but I'll be making an effort to stay away from this project from now on. Just my thoughts. ¿SFGiДnts! ^{¿Complain! ¿Analyze! ¿Review!} 01:13, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't think anyone was questioning the fact that your intentions were good, SFGiants. After all, few people who have been editing two years would all of a sudden decide "I want to make a Wikipedia first by handing out the awards without contacting the coordinators and cause a lot of fuss over it just for fun." I'm still relatively new, but one of the first things I saw everywhere was the Be bold thing that Wikipedia has, and I'm sure that after two years that that would still apply, just as much if not more than it applies to newbies. I read the comments on your editor review, and I don't think they don't assume good faith. LaraLove was merely expressing her opinion on the matter, but no where does she imply that your intentions were not good. Cheers, Corvus coronoides _talk 02:34, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't think the posted diffs show me being rude. They were actually quite light-hearted inquiries. You're reading them with an unintended tone. That aside, you've been here two years and you have 22 edits to your talk page. So I don't think it was a matter of you not getting around to replying to me for lack of activity on WP, which is why I posted the question about whether or not you even saw it, or if you were just ignoring me. Justifiable question. As I stated in my "scathing" review, you don't show an ability to work collaboratively. If you feel you've been bitten, I'm sorry, but as I stated in my own ER, I'm not "sugar-coating the spanking" just because you're a veteran editor. It is what it is... that's what I posted to your page.

Do I think you edited in bad faith? No. Do I think your edits were inappropriate? Most definitely. Did something need to be said about it? Without a doubt. Did I find it rude that you ignored messages on your talk page? Obviously. As far as you leaving the project, that's unfortunate. We certainly need the participation, and I would prefer you familiarize yourself with the criteria and continue to work with GAs, but if you don't feel that is an option, then I'm certainly sorry that I've run you off. Regards, LARA♥LOVE 05:41, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Done/Not done

Why is my name listed as "not done"? As far as I can see, only one of my reviews was overturned. Anyone? ¿SFGiДnts! ^{¿Complain! ¿Analyze! ¿Review!} 00:15, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

We don't sit in front of our computer all day, we got real life problems that may take us off the course. But I'm glad to announce that all the reviews are checked and I will give out the barnstar now. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 01:02, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Not done was for the matter of awards. Those tagged as not done did not adequately review their listed articles, therefore did not earn the awards they prematurely received. In the normal course of things, they would not have been awarded, of course. Speaking specifically of your reviews, SFGiants, although only one was overturned, two required further work by GA "staff", so to speak, to bring up to GA standards. Thankfully, all is over now. Regards, LaraLove 05:36, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Question - why am I listed as "done?" I thought I had two reviews marked with an asterisk, which should have moved me down to the 5 review range. Cheers, Corvus coronoides _talk 15:30, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

I listed you as done because I felt some of concerns are in gray areas and I have the same perspective as you. You got to realize that everyone's standard when reviewing GA is a bit different. We're just trying to catch those articles that really really shouldn't belong to GA but got promoted. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 15:56, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

I see, thank you. Cheers, Corvus coronoides _talk 18:46, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

They had minor issues (lead sections and over-illustration for one) which were all easily and quickly corrected after I posted the messages. LaraLove 22:35, 16 September 2007 (UTC)