Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Articles for creation/July 2021 Backlog Drive

AfC submissions Random submission

~6 weeks

1,020 pending submissions to update

Scoring system

My proposal for the scoring and re-review system:

Scoring:

• Reviews get 1 point.
  • Reviews of drafts older than the median draft instead get 1.5 points.
  • Reviews that fail a re-review instead count as -1 point.
  • Reviews that miss a copyvio instead count as -5 points. That is, for a draft that was a severe copyright violation, any action besides a decline + speedy deletion nomination is -5 points. (Manually flagged.)
• Conducting a re-review gets 1 point.
• Bonus of 3 points for improving a draft that would have clearly been declined and then accepting it. (Manually listed.)

Re-reviews:

• If the original reviewer disagrees, go to the backlog drive talk page.
• Each participant must have had at least 10% of their reviews (or 3 reviews, whichever is less more) re-reviewed for the drive to end and the awards to be distributed.
• Each participant must have conducted a number of re-reviews greater than 10% of their number of reviews. Otherwise, each participant's score will be capped at 10 times their number of re-reviews.

Thoughts requested; please express either a preference for this system or the previous system we used (or a mix of both - I'd really like at least the bonus for reviewing older drafts), which I will copy-paste here for reference:

• 1 point is earned per review.
• 1 point is earned per re-review on other user's drive pages.
• A bonus point is earned when you decline a submission as a copyright violation (WP:COPYVIO), and the page is then deleted by an admin.
• 2 points are lost when two users fail a user's review. As the review has already earned one point, this counts as a loss of one point.

(The implementation of the scoring system isn't held up on this, but it would still be nice to get it established early.)

Thank you! Enterprisey (talk!) 06:09, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

I think the proposed scoring is fine. About the re-review requirements, though, how exactly are re-reviews performed and tracked? Monitor the AfC recent accepted articles showcase and then re-review? How would one find a recently declined draft to re-review? And is everything tracked here on this talk page whether disagreed or endorsed? -2pou (talk) 03:05, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

Enterprisey, how will drafts that are being held up due to existing redirects pending deletion under CSD G6 counted, or histmerge counted? – robertsky (talk) 08:39, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

First/new scoring system proposed sounds good! — Bilorv (talk) 23:02, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

Oh hang on, Enterprisey, "10% of their reviews (or 3 reviews, whichever is less)" should be "10% of their reviews (or 3 reviews, whichever is more)", right? — Bilorv (talk) 23:25, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

@Bilorv This could just be to prevent the drive continuing for too long. ―Qwerfjkltalk 19:15, 10 July 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the catch; fixed. Enterprisey (talk!) 08:50, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

@Enterprisey I like your proposals. As I've said below in response to those seeking different barnstar trigger points, I think none of us need have concerns if we do not get it right this time. There has been so much learning happening that teething troubles are inevitable, expected. If something cannot be tweaked for this drive we can use it as a learning experience and make it better for the next drive

I'm simply both impressed with your skill and those working with you and grateful for the fact that you are insane enough to take this project on Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 11:51, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

Is the WP:QUERY, bot, or whatever is being used to tally the reviews able to detect reviews of drafts that ended up deleted? (G11, G12, etc.) –Novem Linguae (talk) 23:11, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

• Novem Linguae User:Excirial/AFCBuddy can count deleted contributions, I assume as long as run by an administrator. KylieTastic (talk) 14:06, 10 July 2021 (UTC)

  I'll be updating the bot at some point to handle deleted contributions. Enterprisey (talk!) 08:51, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

Rewards are insufficient :)

I thought I'll "earn" a barnstar by reviewing a few articles, but the "cheapest" BS is 50 reviews? Sorry, I think I'll go back to my usual hunts (writing new articles/reviewing them for WikiProjects I am involved in/AfDs). This is just a note that IMHO if you wanted to incentivize people with "barnstars", you put your threshold way too high to attracted most (i.e. you are not going to get a long tail effect here, you are asking people to be super active from the start). _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:52, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

@Piotrus While you have a point, and I agree we should lower the bar, 50 is only just under a couple a day.

This is the first drive since 2014. There will be teething troubles. Why on earth would we get it right first time? Please try not to be negative. Your contribution is positive, yet you haven't quite managed that in the way you have told us what you feel is required.

What level of reviews would you wish for as the first award qualifier? Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 07:31, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

Timtrent, I wish you good luck, sorry if my tone was a bit negative. You are doing a good job. What I'd suggest is to add awards for the 1,2,5, 10, 25 reviewed articles mark, to motivate the long tail contributions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:39, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

@Piotrus It's a good suggestion. Even if it can't be achieved for this drive I'm certain folk will wish to consider it for future ones. We're having to re-learn everything the previous folk already learned, so forgive the teething troubles, keep making good suggestions, and join in for the pure fun of it. Who knows what you may find! What if you topped the leaderboard? Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 09:48, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

As someone who has been considering helping at AfC for a few months now but so far am inexperienced in the matter, and thus may be a target demographic for this drive, I broadly agree with Piotrus. It would be useful to incentivise dropping in for just a day or two. The current ongoing GAN Backlog Drive for example has its first barnstar at 3 reviews, which is small enough that a new reviewer might see it as an achievable goal to try and help out. 50 on the other hand is a somewhat imposing number, and even 15 feels like a commitment. It may actually not be that much of a commitment timewise, but someone inexperienced wouldn't know that (I suspect it's easier than a GAN but I don't know what the conversion rate might be). There may not be a need for a 1, 2, 5, reviews etc., but I would say at least one award, perhaps the brownie, should be for a single digit contribution. CMD (talk) 10:48, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

@Chipmunkdavis definitely excellent suggestions. I know we will strive to improve this drive, the first for many years, but I also know you will understand if not all improvements can be made until the next one

You are most assuredly part of the target demographic. Old hands, too. Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 11:39, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

The GA backlog drive barnstar is 3 points, now there's bonuses, and used to be 2 reviews. Here, 15 points might be 9 normal reviews (some old) and a re-review and improving one draft so it can be accepted. An average GAR would take me 3 hours to conduct, and an average AFC review takes me 60–120 seconds. I suppose someone for whom it's not routine might average 5–10 minutes on a first batch of reviews, after some time reading the rules. But of course, it depends what types of articles/drafts you choose to look at. I've spent 15 hours+ on one GA review, 15 minutes+ on deciding whether to accept/decline certain drafts, and an hour+ improving drafts so that they can be accepted.

I would support something small (is strawberries lesser than brownies? How about a goat?) at 3 points, as something very achievable just for taking a look and dropping in. — Bilorv (talk) 23:25, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

In theory it should be pretty easy to just edit the page and reduce some of the requirements. If we can get a consensus for that, I would support it. It may also be worth looking into replacing the brownie with some kind of barnstar, since apparently non-barnstars sometimes aren't as motivating. I see little downside and mostly upside to handing out more bling. –Novem Linguae (talk) 04:45, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

Also, are the awards meant to be based "Number of submissions reviewed" or "number of points" (the table uses the former)? Pahunkat (talk) 08:23, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

Number of points; table is wrong. Enterprisey (talk!) 06:01, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

the current table is definitely wrong from the start, since it may not have counted in deleted drafts. it is meant to be a temporary gauge anyway until a scoring chart is up. – robertsky (talk) 14:44, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

Proposals for Awards

Let's create some proposals, and have a very brief consensus forming discussion. I've just created the heading. Pinging known interested parties @Pahunkat, Novem Linguae, Bilorv, Chipmunkdavis, and Piotrus: for formal input in what they woudl like to see, either individually or collectivekly, and consensus forming. Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 10:02, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

I note that we have points and we have articles reviewed. I will make a proposal based on that, below Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 10:39, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

• Proposal 1: Per Piotrus - 1,2,5, 10, 25 reviewed articles mark, to motivate the long tail contributions. Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 10:39, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

• Support based on adjusting this for points, not aticle count. This is my preferred proposal. Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 10:57, 9 July 2021 (UTC)
• Weak Support 1 point/reviewed draft seems pretty small given that reviewing a draft at AfC takes significantly less time than reviewing a GA, but I can see that this would encourage "new" reviewers to join and get others involved in the Backlog Drive. Pahunkat (talk) 12:31, 9 July 2021 (UTC)
• Support per my idea, I am afraid I don't understand how Proposal 4 differs. All I suggest is that we award something for doing as little as a single review to motivate people. The first one or two steps can be non-barnstar like, brownies, strawberries, sure. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:27, 10 July 2021 (UTC)
• I'm concerned the top # might not be high enough. Maybe 1, 5, 10, 25, 50 would be better. Could even add a 6th barnstar and tack on 100 to the end. This proposal is on the right track though. Thanks for proposing it. –Novem Linguae (talk) 05:49, 10 July 2021 (UTC)

I did some analysis. If we take the list of points of everybody signed up, and divide it into 6 equal groups, with the bottom group not getting any award, then our point thresholds become as follows: 5, 15, 50, 100, 200. This would be the most even, balanced way to distribute our 5 awards. And it also lowers the barrier to entry for the first 2 awards. That is my new suggestion. Although if there is not strong consensus for any one option, I think leaving it as is with no change is also reasonable. –Novem Linguae (talk) 22:27, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

• Proposal 2: Per Bilorv - I would support something small (is strawberries lesser than brownies? How about a goat?) at 3 points, as something very achievable just for taking a look and dropping in. Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 10:39, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

• Generic support. Prefer modified propoosal 1 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 10:57, 9 July 2021 (UTC)
• Support, incentivise new input! Provide a simple and achievable goal. This support is independent of the other proposals, which might also create such an incentive. CMD (talk) 15:02, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

• Proposal 3: Per Novem Linguae - replacing the brownie with some kind of barnstar, since apparently non-barnstars sometimes aren't as motivating. Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 10:39, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

• Generic support. Prefer modified propoosal 1 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 10:57, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

• Proposal 4: Per Timtrent - ensure that we have a clear understyanding about points vs number of articles reviewed. I propose Points because there is quality checking in there Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 10:39, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

• Support Points, casting my own vote in case it was unclear. Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 10:57, 9 July 2021 (UTC)
• Support Points. Pahunkat (talk) 12:31, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

Implementation

If anyone wants to go ahead and update the awards table with the results of this discussion, or even if they think it would be an improvement, please feel free. The current leaderboard will use whatever awards system is in the table. Enterprisey (talk!) 03:02, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

It looks like the teamwork barnstar was previously awarded at 25 points. ―Qwerfjkltalk 06:28, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

The modest barnstar might be useful too. ―Qwerfjkltalk 08:14, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

Re-reviews

Please can you explain how we are supposed to re-review others reviews? I've reviewed over 300 drafts since July 1st but have no idea how to re-review other users reviews, so will be penalised. Theroadislong (talk) 11:03, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

My understanding is that this is a work in progress and will be something we're doing in some centralised fashion closer to the end of the drive. — Bilorv (talk) 11:51, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

I have a vague memory of the prior model, in 2014. The prior scheme may be found here. Or at least it is there to the extent that it is visible! Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 17:10, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

Somewhere was a table of who said what about which. Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 17:12, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

And how do we find the recently reviewed drafts in order to re-review them? It all seems so tiresome and reduces the number of actual reviews I will take on. Where do we place the AFCDriveQC templates? Theroadislong (talk) 17:17, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

@Theroadislong We are in the teething troubles phase. I think we need to await a technical answer. Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 17:24, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

Same topic, different point (obvious as it may be): I think the re-review feature is important for maintaining the standard of reviews, and this should be sufficiently reflected in what comes to dishing out the bling and glory. A quantitative target may otherwise encourage shoddy reviews just to hit the numbers. I think this was pretty well built into at least the first scoring proposal I saw; just hoping it survives the discussion. --DoubleGrazing (talk) 11:10, 10 July 2021 (UTC)

At the moment I can't see anywhere to record a re-review. Should we create a template that can be placed on an article's talk page, or perhaps each user who wants to participate should create a subpage either of this page or in their userspace where they can list them? Pi (Talk to me!) 23:57, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

See #Re-reviews are open for business. Enterprisey (talk!) 08:52, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

Oops

I didn't see that I had to sign up. Are my 55 reviews not going to qualify? Clarityfiend (talk) 06:33, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

@Clarityfiend I think it was said somewhere that they will count all your reviews during the drive, when you sign up (including reviews before you signed up). ―Qwerfjkltalk 06:41, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

No, it says if you sign up in the first week, they count. Looks like I'm SOL. Clarityfiend (talk) 11:34, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

Clarityfiend, just sign up first. people are still adding themselves to the list at this point in time. – robertsky (talk) 15:15, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

Clarityfiend, we had a discussion somewhere about this. I don't see it here so maybe it was at WT:AFCR. I think we were leaning in the direction of auto counting all reviews for the month of July. –Novem Linguae (talk) 05:33, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

All of July sounds good to me, unless anyone objects. Enterprisey (talk!) 08:52, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

I can confirm that the scoring script doesn't currently check when you signed up. Stuartyeates (talk) 23:57, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

@Clarityfiend: all your July reviews should count, defo, even the pre-sign-up ones. Unless, of course, you're very close to beating me to some bling, in which case they defo shouldn't. Hope that answers your question. --DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:26, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

No chance of that. Thanks. Clarityfiend (talk) 06:33, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

Leaderboard

The Drive Page notes that there is an automated scoring system being discussed/created here, but I don't see any discussion on that - If it's not too technically difficult, I think there ought to be a leaderboard put up pretty soon (we're nearly halfway through the month). Even if the scoring system isn't 100% solidified, it should at least be possible to have a leaderboard tracking the number of reviews (as opposed to points) each reviewer has amassed. AviationFreak💬 02:01, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

AviationFreak, if you're familiar with Quarry, you can just fork something like this and then hit "Submit Query" to refresh it. Credit to KylieTastic and Robertsky and whoever else I forked this from. –Novem Linguae (talk) 05:33, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

P.S. I decided to boldly add a leaderboard to this page just now. Hope it helps. –Novem Linguae (talk) 05:40, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

Thanks! Nearly done with my stuff, but we should keep that leaderboard up. Enterprisey (talk!) 06:12, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for adding the leaderboard! :) Just to clarify, the review tally is exactly that; doesn't include the scoring yet? And looking at the figures, I can't help remarking on the range of percentages — acceptance rates go from 0% to 100%! (Are reviewers selecting what they feel comfortable with? Or erring on one side or the other? Or applying wildly differing criteria? Just wondering.) --DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:34, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

Yes, no scoring yet, the leaderboard I added is just AFC review counts. As to the wide spread of percentages... Front of queue patrolling can lead to more declines. So can focusing only on easy drafts or drafts with few references. I think I computed the average the other day, and it averages out to 21% accept rate, 76% decline rate, 3% reject rate. –Novem Linguae (talk) 08:23, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

The participants list contains 81 names, but the leaderboard has 180 entries, so it looks like those are stats for all reviewers and not just those who have decided to join the drive. Please fix this so that those of us who have not signed up are not included in the contest leaderboard. Thanks! --bonadea contributions talk 08:00, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

Bonadea, updated – robertsky (talk) 20:28, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

Points and reviewing

Are we hellbent on doing points and checking other people's work? Might be simpler and more efficient to just do straight up # of reviews. I imagine anybody doing a bad job of AFC reviewing will be discovered naturally through other means, and could be disqualified on a case-by-case basis. –Novem Linguae (talk) 08:27, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

I'm very unconvinced that any bad AFC reviewing will be discovered naturally: some types would be (accepting obviously bad drafts) and others likely wouldn't (applying a much too harsh standard, missing copyvio checks etc.). And even if you discover a bad accept/decline, determining that it is a bad reviewer (not just an acceptable level of human error) requires co-ordination. This is particularly the case given the overwhelming NPP backlog (less scrutiny on accepts). Given the large influx of new participants and an incentive for rapid-scale reviewing, we definitely need the re-reviewing. — Bilorv (talk) 13:21, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

Re-reviews are open for business

See Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/July 2021 Backlog Drive#Reviewing Reviews. (05:56, 20 July 2021 (UTC): Instructions used to be in this talk page post, moved them there.)

I'll have the bot count the re-reviews later.

Thanks, and please let me know if you have any comments. Apologies for the delays. Enterprisey (talk!) 08:30, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

Just a question about re-reviews - do we have to pick random entries from the logs or can we choose which ones to re-review? Pahunkat (talk) 09:00, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

Pahunkat, you can choose, although try to evenly distribute them over the participants; see the scoring system at the top of this talk page (which I still need to copy over). Enterprisey (talk!) 09:10, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

subpages of the Participants page is only showing 30 participants? Theroadislong (talk) 10:44, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

Theroadislong Looks like Enterprisey is manually creating the pages in alphabetical order, but not all are up yet. Pahunkat (talk) 14:15, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

When should we be failing a re-review? There's a boundary of flexibility based on inclusionism/deletionism and where each person's threshold "percentage chance of surviving AFD needed to accept" is. Am I failing it if there would have been a different outcome if I had been the one reviewing, or if I think that no reasonable reviewer could have given that outcome? Am I fine to comment directly on the re-review page if I want to say "I would have done this differently, but I think this could be reasonable", or "Can the reviewer give me some more explanation on which sources they thought content towards notability"? And can the same review be re-reviewed more than once (like someone who takes issue with someone else re-reviewing something a fail)? — Bilorv (talk) 20:21, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

I'm still not clear about re-reviews do I place the templates on the draft's talk page like this [1] for example. You also state that "Each participant must have conducted a number of re-reviews greater than 10% of their number of reviews" so I have to re-review at least 70 other users reviews, seems rather onerous and could take a few days and puts me off reviewing more. Theroadislong (talk) 21:08, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

@Theroadislong In part the burden of re-reviews slows the big hitters down a tad to allow the less productive folk to catch up. But you get points for a re-review. Now, points may not motivate you, but I bet quality does. As a big hitter, your re-reviews are likely to be more incisive, and help the overall project Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 22:56, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

@Theroadislong Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/July 2021 Backlog Drive/Participants/15 ids a good example oh placing a re-review Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 22:58, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

@Timtrent Ahhh, OK thanks for that I've been placing the re-review on the draft talk pages, I find all these instructions very vague and complicated! Theroadislong (talk) 07:30, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

@Theroadislong We are very much in the teething troubles phase. But the drive is doing its job. Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 17:51, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

@Bilorv I go back to the JUne 2014 re-reviews where we commented to justify a fail, but, broadly, accepted a pass. If we are all assumed to review to the same standard, then our "different outcome" and our view on the chances of failing an immediate deletion process ought to be broadly congruent.

Nothing wrong with two different opinions on a re-review. That builds consensus Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 22:53, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

@Enterprisey I don't think you have every reviewer in the pages listing their reviews (More partticipants in the drive than prefixed pages). Tech glitch? Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 07:16, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

I'm uploading them slowly because the process I have for creating them is pretty bad. I'll automate it soon. Enterprisey (talk!) 07:45, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

I had a feeling that might be the case. More power to your elbow Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 08:20, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

Enterprisey, fyi, typo in one page title: Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/July 2021 Backlog Drive/Participants/Antan0. I have moved it to Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/July 2021 Backlog Drive/Participants/AntanO cuz it appeared as a red link in the leaderboard table. – robertsky (talk) 20:38, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

Thanks! Enterprisey (talk!) 06:02, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

Update: I'm doing another run of all the participants. I'll get it down to daily updates after this. For my fellow BAG members, if anyone wants to take a look at my BRFA, that'll save me some laptop electricity :) Enterprisey (talk!) 06:04, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

Duplicate reviews

Any way to flag duplicate reviews? (Such as by JSFarman here ("Pass/Fail/Duplicate"?)) Bogger (talk) 15:28, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

I introduced Invalid to flag such a situation (sorry about the bug); instructions updated. Thanks for pointing that out! Enterprisey (talk!) 05:57, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

Leaderboard

I've updated the leaderboard, tweaked to include columns for comments. I'm not sure whether these should be included in the scoring. Stuartyeates (talk) 20:36, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

Why did everyones edit count go down with this edit [2]? Theroadislong (talk) 21:49, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

Beats me. I just followed the instructions on updating it Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 22:50, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

It's because in my version, everyone's counts included drafts you'd commented on and I forgot to publish by query. It's https://quarry.wmflabs.org/query/56812 BTW. Stuartyeates (talk) 22:52, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

I've updated the leaderboard again based on https://quarry.wmflabs.org/query/56812 The tot_reveiews column is accept + decline + reject + comment. I've got the query pretty much figured out, so if anyone wants any other kinds of counts, let me know. Stuartyeates (talk) 20:41, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

I've updated the leaderboard again and this time it has wikilinks to the participants. Stuartyeates (talk) 21:02, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

I've put a considerably more radical update on User:Stuartyeates/sandbox, https://quarry.wmflabs.org/query/56841 if anyone is interested. It probably needs to be limited to the last dozen or so links, but I've not just worked out how to do that. Stuartyeates (talk) 21:30, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

It is an honor to be among the top concat("'s. Clarityfiend (talk) 22:47, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

Clarityfiend: fixed. Stuartyeates (talk) 23:30, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

Stuartyeates, Hmm... how about just a link to the re-review pages? – robertsky (talk) 18:18, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

I agree. ―Qwerfjkltalk 18:44, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

I've updated with the re-reviews and also deleted the tot-reviews column. Stuartyeates (talk) 20:13, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

Stuartyeates, I have also updated the list of participants in the query: my fork. – robertsky (talk) 20:29, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

Updated again using User:Robertsky's excelent fork. Stuartyeates (talk) 04:20, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

Review quality

Ok, none of us will get anywhere near 100% re-reviews, but this drive is providing higher quality reviews than the June 2014 drive. YMMV.

I have re-reviewed a good number. I'm trying to review an accept and a decline for the same reviewer, not always managing it. I've found some borderline decisions, but have not yet found any I would fail. The borderline ones have made me think hard.

Back in 2014 we had quite a swathe of failures in the reviews. Regrettably one editor was responsible for many of those, and that may be why we lost our appetite for drives. Just over half way through and I think this one is showing all the right signs. Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 17:48, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

• I agree, I've not done much general checking but what I have has turned up no issues, also I've looked at the AfD and Prod candidates and no major worries (just a couple of accepts I disagree with). Also I was thinking this backlog may dump on the NPP but there is no noticeable change in trend in there stats. In general this has exceeded my expectation by a lot, and without some key people who are busy, we may even 'clear' the damn backlog (which I would take as under 1000). KylieTastic (talk) 18:51, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

  We started at 4000, and got to 2000 by the middle of the month. We're on pace to clear the backlog entirely. That would be super cool :) –Novem Linguae (talk) 20:00, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

  My hope is that we clear the time backlog, rather than the numeric backlog. I would like to see turnaround time to be sub one month, ideally a few days at the most.

  Even a questionable accept decision at review only becomes a true failure if more than one of us re-reviews it as such.

  I don't mind if material is sent to AfD. All we are asked to do is to use our knowledge and instinct to accept drafts with a better than 50% chance of survival. In other words we ''should'' be making borderline acceptances, just not ones that are a gamble. Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 20:59, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

  I think the practical acceptance threshold at AfC is too high. A reject can feel like the path of least resistance—it feels like the default action. I only have to establish one reason why it should be rejected, rather than establish every condition for acceptance. I'm accountable mostly to the draft creator (generally a newbie or paid editor where I can write almost a boilerplate response to any question asked) rather than the experienced editors at NPP and AfD. There's no follow-up to a reject but I'm on the hook for follow-ups to the accept (like AfD) indefinitely. And sometimes with accepts I have all this G6, round robin or histmerge stuff to request. None of these are good reasons to reject, but they are non-trivial subconscious biases that can change how people act. I try to be aware that I have these biases and force myself to ask, "if I didn't have the pain in the arse of actually having to implement this action, which would I choose?" Same is true of people doing copyvio checks and follow-up properly. — Bilorv (talk) 22:51, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

  @Bilorv I'm going to argue with being on the hook should something we accept go to AfD. I care enough to learn from the outcome, not the nomination, but I choose a steadfast neutral stance in the discussion if I contribute to it at all. I am not an advocate for the article, just a reviewer working as well as I am able. I don't view it that I got it wrong. I view it that my assessment of a better than 50% chance of surviving an immediate deletion discussion was assessed differently by the nominator, and I accept their right to think differently from me Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 17:17, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

  I don't know if this is what @Bilorv: meant also, but for me reject isn't the path of least resistance; that would be decline, which can sometimes have a whiff of passing-the-buck. A clear accept is also easy, and quite satisfying, even. The one I find hardest is to reject: you're pretty much killing that draft, and that (possibly noob) editor's hopes and dreams, by saying "no way, not now and not ever". That's why (rightly or wrongly) I try to save my rejects for the ones that seem beyond saving (hence my pathetic reject %!). --DoubleGrazing (talk) 13:51, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

  Reject was added for troublesome re-submitters. Personally I believe it is WP:BITEY and should not be used on first submissions. Also for a decline you can just say it has not yet been shown to be acceptable from what is presented, for a reject you need to go check that even the worst written submission isn't actually notable. So I see no need to BITE or waste time doing a WP:BEFORE when the majority of junk posts are not resubmitted. Some do choose to do more checks and reject, thats fine. Cheers KylieTastic (talk) 14:30, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

  @DoubleGrazing: all of my comment was meant to refer to declines, rather than rejects. I forgot completely that there were three options rather than two and was just using "reject" as the literal English word meaning "the opposite of accept". — Bilorv (talk) 15:09, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

Re-review quality

Oddly I've come across more re-review issues that review issues. i.e. fails that as far as I can tell are not backed by policy. Such as there is no requirement to reject ever over just declining (and I have a general disslike for people rejecting first submissions as WP:BITEY). Also another fail based on procedural order and preference rather than any policy fail. Frankly I think a fail should require a remedy action to be taken, i.e AfD/PROD a bad accept or accept a bad decline/reject. Nitpicking things done not quite as you would have done but require no action should not be fails, maybe don't mark as passed but we do have a wide range of styles that still are acceptable per guidelines. KylieTastic (talk) 20:55, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

@KylieTastic While I see your point regarding a desire to take action if we deem a review to have been an incorrect acceptance, I also understand why that may not be beimng done. Policy based or not, it feels rude. We need to get over ourselves on that issue, but I think human nature renders that unlikely. Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 21:01, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

I also got failed for declining something instead of rejecting something (a draft in another language, for which there is a perfect decline reason but no perfect reject reason). It stings a bit, but hearing other people's feedback is a good thing in the long run, I guess. –Novem Linguae (talk) 01:58, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

See, I don't think this should be a fail? Am I wrong? Enterprisey (talk!) 03:54, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

This is really not a fail from the information provided here. The good news is that this means that the re-reviewer also gets educated, and we improve Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 08:02, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

Having looked at this in more details I have left my own re-review, one that I hope also helps in educating folk. I can see why a rejection might be argued on this one, but it would not be my own choice. I do not view a decline vs a rejection to be a failure. Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 08:12, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

Agree with @KylieTastic: I'm also finding myself disagreeing with reviews more than I was expecting (although looking at the huge variance in outcome %ages from one editor to the other, I guess I shouldn't have been expecting what I was). But what's more, after a couple of 'fails' I realise I started gravitating towards reviews that I could agree with, so that I don't become a complete party pooper. Which pretty much defeats the purpose of the whole re-reviewing exercise, or at least doesn't make the most of its quality-control potential. --DoubleGrazing (talk) 16:28, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

Maybe someone could develop a clever script that allocates a random review for you to re-review, and you couldn't move on before completing that. And better yet, make it so that it requires a re-review after every ten reviews, to ensure that 10% re-review rate. :) --DoubleGrazing (talk) 16:31, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

I like your idea here, very much

I see no harm in disagreeing with reviews or even with re-reviews. I see you and I have disagreed on a re-review in one area, for example, but neither you nor I will fall out over it. Having divergent opinions and interpretations is absolutely fine. Sufficient opinions, even divergent ones, create eventual consensus Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 17:12, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

You can accomplish this yourself with a random number generator (which I've been using to pick what reviews to re-review). I am skipping ones I think I'm not qualified to do (like a history topic), but not difficult decisions. — Bilorv (talk) 00:19, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

I'm gonna make one of those once I get the points-based leaderboard going. Enterprisey (talk!) 03:54, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

DoubleGrazing, fyi, I don't mind having fails on my reviews. :3. I am a relatively new reviewer, and sometimes find it difficult to moderate my stance for approving/declining rationale. The re-reviews will at least validate/invalidate some of my decisions. To me the re-reviews is an exercise to gauge where we are relative of each other, and a learning experience. – robertsky (talk) 21:50, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

It feels harder to make an inroad

We're in the final third of the drive and it is starting to feel a bit like heavy lifting with the oldest submissions. We've gotten a load of the easier ones, or is that just the way I feel at present? Getting down to and below a 1,000 submissions queue feels like hard work.

Well done, and not just the big hitters. Those of us who've only dipped their toes into the water, it's really good to have you here. Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 15:41, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

Yup, feels like we hit the wall. I guess some are getting review fatigue, but also we've had more submissions, with over 300 yesterday (inc. deletions). Also I worked on some that took an hour or two to finish then accept at the same time the submitter just submitting more so no backlog gain. I've updated my expectations from maybe we can clear, to lets hope we can get sub 1000 and clear 3 months! KylieTastic (talk) 16:07, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

Yes I agree, it feels like wading through treacle, with the oldest ones usually being the most conflicted and difficult, I had a day off today and went to the beach and have other work to do tomorrow but will get back to the grindstone soon. Theroadislong (talk) 16:09, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

I am sorta taking a break for this week, because of:

1. there was this attack in a local school that had one student killed on Monday morning. kinda broke some psyche nationwide. increasing covid case count doesn't help in cheering up.
2. public holiday Hari Raya Haji on Tuesday, cheered up a bit. news in rollbacking to semi lockdown over covid cases doesn't help in cheering up.
3. taking time off from work in general on Thu and Fri. start of semi-lockdown on Thu definitely will not help in cheering up. – robertsky (talk) 16:21, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

• It would have been good if we could have closed submissions for two weeks. The progress would have been quicker and thus more motivational. Without 200+ a day submissions we would have cleared completely by now. KylieTastic (talk) 16:44, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

Yes it feels like submissions have increased exponentially the past week or so. Theroadislong (talk) 16:56, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

It always does feel like this. I really pointed it out as one of the veterans from 2014 so that we don't get discouraged. I think we need a round of applause for every net 100 we knock off the total now and a HUGE round of applause when we clear the ever refilling 3 month age category Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 20:46, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

Reviewing lots of drafts possibly correlates with submissions going up, due to resubmits. That could explain why it's hard to get ahead of it. Hats off to the reviewers tackling hard drafts. CITEBOMB and foreign language sources are no walk in the park. –Novem Linguae (talk) 22:28, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

Is there a way to get notified when a draft I review gets resubmitted? Many resubmissions seem to be trivial updates and once I've invested the grey matter understanding a draft, re-review should be easier, right? Stuartyeates (talk) 10:45, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

Stuartyeates not that I have ever heard of, so the only options are watchlist or add a comment asking the author to let you know when they have updated and resubmitted . Regards KylieTastic (talk) 11:16, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

• Maybe we spoke to soon, the drive has found a second wind..... there is hope.... KylieTastic (talk) 21:17, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

  The graph looks very steady. I don't see any plateauing at all. Looking good! –Novem Linguae (talk) 21:22, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

I’ve been slowly gnawing away at the 3 month section, only 30 to go, it could be clear by the weekend perhaps?Theroadislong (talk) 21:39, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

Clearing the backlog completely

I did some (not so quick) math (since I forgot all my algebra, lol). Long story short, here's the equation to figure out how many drafts are left on a certain day: $drafts-4200=-144.444(day-1)$. At this rate, we will clear the backlog completely on day 31. Woot.

If we don't hit 0 drafts on day 31, I think it might make sense to extend the drive a few days. 0 drafts would be an awesome goal to achieve. –Novem Linguae (talk) 12:12, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

That depends on how many difficult drafts we get left that keep getting resubmitted. I think I would consider a 100 or less and max queue length of a week to be 'clear'. With the peaks and troughs of submissions and reviews it will be hard to get to actual zero. KylieTastic (talk) 12:51, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

Is zero even possible (other than fleetingly), let alone realistic? Surely it's like bailing water out of a leaking boat in heavy rain, you never get that last drop. (Genuine question, not trying to be clever.) --DoubleGrazing (talk) 14:32, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

Correct, there are 200 or so new submissions a day I would guess, many declined/accepted within seconds but others that are less immediately notable/non notable. Theroadislong (talk) 14:39, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

I think 0 drafts older than 0 days old is the best estimation of "completely cleared". — Bilorv (talk) 10:51, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

There are currently 146 pending submissions that needs attention of experienced AfC reviewers to clear the backlog drive. Pinging Theroadislong, KylieTastic, Novem Linguae, Timtrent, DoubleGrazing, Bilorv. TheBirdsShedTears (talk) 05:21, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

I was travelling 95% of yesterday. I'll see what I can achieve today, but reviewing when tired is susceptible to errors Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 07:02, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

I've been at it since 6am, and when I just purged the counter the damned number actually went up! :( Somebody really ought to block the feeder end of the pipeline for a couple of days... --DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:58, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

Diff not found

On Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/July 2021 Backlog Drive/Participants/TheWikiholic, the first draft gives a 'diff not found' error. ―Qwerfjkltalk 11:16, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

• Hi Qwerfjkl that's because Draft:Chirag Nagpal was deleted. Cheers KylieTastic (talk) 12:32, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

Five and a half days to go

If we thought it was tough before, the last days of a drive are always tough. The real question is "How low can we go?" Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 09:06, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

Leaderboard - first draft

I've only done spot checks, so these numbers may be REALLY screwy. Please let me know if anything seems off. Note that I ran these by giving a 1.5x bonus to all reviews done on 30-day or older drafts. That's a very different threshold from what I specified up above (median), but it's easier to calculate (I don't even know if we have median-age data). Seeing as how it changed the order around a bit, I'm open to suggestions on if we should do the "very old" threshold (which is a higher number that I don't remember) or something else. Anyway, enough from me. Without further ado:

Old leaderboard

TheBirdsShedTears, 940 (normal: 400, old: 361, failed: 1, re-reviews done: 0 Theroadislong, 928 (normal: 700, old: 102, failed: 1, re-reviews done: 76 KylieTastic, 574 (normal: 543, old: 17, failed: 0, re-reviews done: 6 DoubleGrazing, 424 (normal: 72, old: 211, failed: 0, re-reviews done: 36 Robert McClenon, 260 (normal: 76, old: 123, failed: 0, re-reviews done: 0 Nearlyevil665, 235 (normal: 201, old: 7, failed: 1, re-reviews done: 25 Calliopejen1, 234 (normal: 170, old: 43, failed: 0, re-reviews done: 0 Locomotive207, 228 (normal: 77, old: 101, failed: 0, re-reviews done: 0 Clearfrienda, 227 (normal: 118, old: 73, failed: 0, re-reviews done: 0 Robertsky, 193 (normal: 78, old: 62, failed: 0, re-reviews done: 22 Timtrent, 191 (normal: 43, old: 73, failed: 0, re-reviews done: 39 Doric Loon, 168 (normal: 37, old: 88, failed: 1, re-reviews done: 0 Clarityfiend, 165 (normal: 2, old: 103, failed: 0, re-reviews done: 9 Qwerfjkl, 161 (normal: 62, old: 53, failed: 0, re-reviews done: 20 Eternal Shadow, 158 (normal: 94, old: 43, failed: 0, re-reviews done: 0 Devonian Wombat, 144 (normal: 102, old: 18, failed: 0, re-reviews done: 15 Laplorfill, 135 (normal: 128, old: 5, failed: 0, re-reviews done: 0 MurielMary, 135 (normal: 53, old: 55, failed: 0, re-reviews done: 0 Goldsztajn, 121 (normal: 43, old: 52, failed: 0, re-reviews done: 0 AntanO, 120 (normal: 51, old: 48, failed: 3, re-reviews done: 0 Novem Linguae, 119 (normal: 118, old: 1, failed: 0, re-reviews done: 0 Sionk, 100 (normal: 4, old: 64, failed: 0, re-reviews done: 0 Bogger, 92 (normal: 10, old: 38, failed: 1, re-reviews done: 26 Chris troutman, 90 (normal: 0, old: 59, failed: 0, re-reviews done: 2 HitroMilanese, 89 (normal: 49, old: 27, failed: 0, re-reviews done: 0 Bilorv, 87 (normal: 50, old: 14, failed: 0, re-reviews done: 16 HighKing, 83 (normal: 10, old: 49, failed: 0, re-reviews done: 0 Curbon7, 82 (normal: 58, old: 16, failed: 0, re-reviews done: 0 Stuartyeates, 82 (normal: 24, old: 39, failed: 0, re-reviews done: 0 Curb Safe Charmer, 75 (normal: 51, old: 16, failed: 0, re-reviews done: 0 Deb, 74 (normal: 11, old: 43, failed: 1, re-reviews done: 0 ProClasher97, 73 (normal: 51, old: 15, failed: 0, re-reviews done: 0 Pahunkat, 71 (normal: 61, old: 5, failed: 0, re-reviews done: 3 2pou, 67 (normal: 4, old: 37, failed: 0, re-reviews done: 8 Modussiccandi, 66 (normal: 2, old: 43, failed: 0, re-reviews done: 0 Nightenbelle, 63 (normal: 26, old: 24, failed: 0, re-reviews done: 1 Kvng, 55 (normal: 0, old: 37, failed: 0, re-reviews done: 0 Davisonio, 46 (normal: 6, old: 27, failed: 0, re-reviews done: 0 K.e.coffman, 45 (normal: 5, old: 27, failed: 0, re-reviews done: 0 Tol, 42 (normal: 41, old: 1, failed: 0, re-reviews done: 0 Worldbruce, 37 (normal: 1, old: 22, failed: 0, re-reviews done: 3 78.26, 37 (normal: 9, old: 10, failed: 0, re-reviews done: 13 Yeeno, 34 (normal: 15, old: 10, failed: 0, re-reviews done: 4 JavaHurricane, 34 (normal: 34, old: 0, failed: 0, re-reviews done: 0 M-Mustapha, 33 (normal: 3, old: 20, failed: 0, re-reviews done: 0 Etzedek24, 32 (normal: 6, old: 18, failed: 1, re-reviews done: 0 Innisfree987, 31 (normal: 1, old: 20, failed: 0, re-reviews done: 0 DanCherek, 30 (normal: 29, old: 0, failed: 0, re-reviews done: 1 JSFarman, 26 (normal: 17, old: 7, failed: 1, re-reviews done: 0 Hatchens, 25 (normal: 25, old: 0, failed: 0, re-reviews done: 0 Scorpions13256, 23 (normal: 5, old: 12, failed: 0, re-reviews done: 0 AviationFreak, 16 (normal: 12, old: 3, failed: 0, re-reviews done: 0 Chess, 14 (normal: 2, old: 8, failed: 0, re-reviews done: 0 Umakant Bhalerao, 14 (normal: 14, old: 0, failed: 0, re-reviews done: 0 Usedtobecool, 13 (normal: 6, old: 5, failed: 0, re-reviews done: 0 Mcguy15, 12 (normal: 6, old: 4, failed: 0, re-reviews done: 0 Pbrks, 12 (normal: 3, old: 6, failed: 0, re-reviews done: 0 Berrely, 12 (normal: 2, old: 7, failed: 0, re-reviews done: 0 Bradv, 12 (normal: 5, old: 5, failed: 0, re-reviews done: 0 Grand'mere Eugene, 11 (normal: 1, old: 7, failed: 0, re-reviews done: 0 Yitzilitt, 11 (normal: 2, old: 6, failed: 0, re-reviews done: 0 TheWikiholic, 10 (normal: 10, old: 0, failed: 0, re-reviews done: 0 LittlePuppers, 10 (normal: 6, old: 3, failed: 0, re-reviews done: 0 Extraordinary Writ, 10 (normal: 10, old: 0, failed: 0, re-reviews done: 0 Jack Frost, 9 (normal: 8, old: 1, failed: 0, re-reviews done: 0 PK650, 8 (normal: 4, old: 3, failed: 0, re-reviews done: 0 Kaizenify, 8 (normal: 1, old: 5, failed: 0, re-reviews done: 0 333-blue, 8 (normal: 5, old: 2, failed: 0, re-reviews done: 0 Zeromonk, 6 (normal: 0, old: 4, failed: 0, re-reviews done: 0 Z1720, 5 (normal: 1, old: 3, failed: 0, re-reviews done: 0 Sam Sailor, 4 (normal: 4, old: 0, failed: 0, re-reviews done: 0 15, 3 (normal: 0, old: 2, failed: 0, re-reviews done: 0 EDG 543, 3 (normal: 3, old: 0, failed: 0, re-reviews done: 0 Plandu, 3 (normal: 0, old: 2, failed: 0, re-reviews done: 0 CaptainEek, 2 (normal: 1, old: 1, failed: 0, re-reviews done: 0 Dreamy Jazz, 2 (normal: 2, old: 0, failed: 0, re-reviews done: 0 Chenzw, 1 (normal: 0, old: 1, failed: 0, re-reviews done: 0 Nizil Shah, 1 (normal: 1, old: 0, failed: 0, re-reviews done: 0 Trillfendi, 0 (normal: 0, old: 0, failed: 0, re-reviews done: 0 Daask, 0 (normal: 0, old: 0, failed: 0, re-reviews done: 0 Pi, 0 (normal: 0, old: 0, failed: 0, re-reviews done: 0 Nyanardsan, 0 (normal: 0, old: 1, failed: 1, re-reviews done: 0 UnitedStatesian, 0 (normal: 0, old: 0, failed: 0, re-reviews done: 0 Enterprisey, 0 (normal: 0, old: 0, failed: 0, re-reviews done: 0 AppleBsTime, 0 (normal: 0, old: 0, failed: 0, re-reviews done: 0 G. Moore, 0 (normal: 0, old: 0, failed: 0, re-reviews done: 0 GRuban, 0 (normal: 0, old: 0, failed: 0, re-reviews done: 0 Godsy, 0 (normal: 0, old: 0, failed: 0, re-reviews done: 0 ToBeFree, 0 (normal: 0, old: 0, failed: 0, re-reviews done: 0 Modern Major General, -1 (normal: 0, old: 0, failed: 1, re-reviews done: 0)

Also, list of unresolved conflicting re-reviews:

• Bogger: review is '#:Pass I don't have a problem with this, the RD request process works well and with the copy vio removed it's of very little harm. I've done similar a couple of times (but always keep on my watch list to make sure RD is completed) KylieTastic (talk) 20:34, 17 July 2021 (UTC)', disagreement is Fail vs Pass
• Modern Major General: review is '#:Pass (meaning, I agree with Modern Major General's declination — just for clarity!); I would have also declined this, albeit on the basis of being insufficiently sourced: there are several paragraphs without a single citation, which IMO isn't okay in a BLP. I realise I'm being quite strict about this, the policy only says that contentious material must be directly supported by a citation: I'm not saying that missing a cite would cause a published article to fail, but I am saying there's no reason to accept a draft that has major issues with citing even non-contentious statements (esp. when what is or isn't contentious is not necessarily always clear-cut). --DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:44, 18 July 2021 (UTC)', disagreement is Fail vs Pass
• Theroadislong: review is '#:Pass Passes WP:NPROF. All else can be solved in main space. Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 20:34, 17 July 2021 (UTC)', disagreement is Fail vs Pass

Going to do another round of review log updates soon, been very busy IRL. Awesome job so far, everyone, and looking forward to seeing how far we can make it in the final few days! Enterprisey (talk!) 10:30, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

@Enterprisey I think with re-reviews where one says pass and the other says fail, the review is considered to be a pass. It takes two fails to cancel a pass. Or so I recall from the preliminary discussions. Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 10:42, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

That was how the older scoring system worked. I was sort of hoping for this one that the re-reviewers would reach a consensus, maybe here, maybe on the log page. Enterprisey (talk!) 10:57, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

As I'm involved in one of those 'unresolved' cases, just to say that I'm happy to do whatever is needed to sort out this matter. However, given that the article in question has now been accepted, I'm not quite sure how consensus is to be reached, other than perhaps by me striking out my re-review (which I can do, in the interests of community harmony and all that!). :) --DoubleGrazing (talk) 11:25, 26 July 2021 (UTC) (PS: Using 30 days as opposed to median as the old/new boundary seems entirely sensible to me, FWIW.)

@Enterprisey where there are two opinions that are opposed a consensus is unlikely. May I suggest we run with the scheme as devised originally and consider for the next drive how to improve it? Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 07:22, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

It goes with the first re-review appearing in the text right now. I'd prefer a single failing re-review to fail the whole review. Then we just need to decide if a pass + a fail has the effect of a pass or a fail. Or maybe the review just doesn't count for any points? Enterprisey (talk!) 08:23, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

@Enterprisey the numbers looked very low so I did a dig. Checking mine you have 543+17 = 560 reviews. Where as my checks show I have 712 with around 240 deleted ~ 951. So I'm assuming your not counting deleted, and comparing with Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/July 2021 Backlog Drive/Participants/KylieTastic to my list it looks like your not counting user-space reviews (NS:2), only draft namespace (NS: 118). However cutting out user-space I still got 617, so I then twigged if make articles distinct I get down to 580 so just 1 review per article (which may have been on purpose). Cheers KylieTastic (talk) 11:44, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, I should've said - I haven't updated the review logs (the subpages with the review lists) in a few days, and the leaderboard above was calculated from the current (i.e. outdated) state of the review logs. I'll update the review logs again soon (probably not long after midnight tonight in UTC), and then run the leaderboard again. Thank you for checking and paying attention. Enterprisey (talk!) 17:50, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

Oh, schist! You're 100% right, I forgot to count userspace. Whoooops. And I'll have to look into whether I made articles distinct - the code just goes through every user contribution, but maybe there's something else screwing that up. I also don't count deleted/oversighted/suppressed revisions yet. Enterprisey (talk!) 17:53, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

@Enterprisey Happy to did into details and give feedback, and whatever you have the time to fix great, but the only thing I care about is that we have got the backlog down to a reasonable level. Real life is more important and don't feel any pressure just because we charged into this with no really enough prep time. The backlog is down, and apart from one very angry ranty idiot I think most other are very happy with how this has gone. Cheers KylieTastic (talk) 19:41, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

@Enterprisey I agree with KT. The backlog is the thing. We know and accept all the teething troubles. Please don not get stressed over balancing this and your actual life Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 19:45, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

Userspace is being counted now; two reviews on the same page have fortunately been counted. Running into some difficulties using the API to get deleted revisions; probably later. Enterprisey (talk!) 07:56, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

Nevermind, Majavah fixed it so now we can get deleted revisions too. (Thanks!) Enterprisey (talk!) 08:15, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

And KylieTastic your review log now has 951 on the dot. So that worked out. Enterprisey (talk!) 08:29, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

It's always pleasing to see that maths still works :) KylieTastic (talk) 08:35, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

Enterprisey, fyi, I have scraped through all of the review pages, and it gives me 8756 reviews. (There may some missing rows since I am using Octoparse with one pass to do the scraping.) Removing the reviews that doesn't have "(X days)", it gives me 8450 reviews. And the median review of 8450 reviews is at... 0 days. If we remove the reviews that is done at 0 days (given that the aim is to clear backlog, removing 0-day reviews from counting the median should be acceptable), the median is 68 days. – robertsky (talk) 09:21, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

Cool, thanks for looking into it. I was envisioning "median" being the median days-waited at the time when the review was done. 68 is sorta high. I wonder if anyone else has an opinion. Enterprisey (talk!) 03:10, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

Isn't the problem with median that it changes each time a review is done, a new draft is added to the pool, and also with each day that passes. Seems very sophisticated, but also awfully complicated to me. As I said earlier, using an 'arbitrary' figure is reasonable IMO, and I think 30 days seems as good as any. --DoubleGrazing (talk) 05:05, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, so I was gonna calculate the median once a day and use that median for every review done that day. But that was taking too long, so I prioritized getting the visible parts (review logs and leaderboard) working first. Enterprisey (talk!) 06:13, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

The points-based leaderboard is now transcluded on the drive page. Enterprisey (talk!) 03:10, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

@Enterprisey It would be great if you could convert the lists (points and re-reviews) to table format, and merge the points with the current review leaderboard. Thanks! ―Qwerfjkltalk 12:40, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

I considered that, but the resulting table would've been very wide. Not sure how to mitigate that. Enterprisey (talk!) 18:17, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

@Enterprisey You could abbreviate the accept, decline etc. to A, D, R, remove the comments column, and remove either the percentage or count sections.
(Giving Rank, Points, Username, Re-Reviews, A, D, R.) ―Qwerfjkltalk 18:38, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

(And you could abbreviate the Old, Normal, Failed columns similarly - might need a key.) ―Qwerfjkltalk 18:42, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

That would be ten columns (rank, username, points, re-reviews, accepts, declines, rejects, normal, old, failed), which in my opinion would be pretty hard to read. I also like the percentages, as they add valuable information; that would be another two or three columns. The current design, although vertically inefficient (we could still just remove people without any reviews), at least doesn't have too much information per row. Enterprisey (talk!) 19:42, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

@Enterprisey Can you convert the lists into tables, then? Also, I don't seem to have a Teamwork Barnstar in the Re-review leaderboard :(. Sorry for the late reply. ―Qwerfjkltalk 08:58, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

I think the primary use-case of the points leaderboard is to quickly scan down, then find your name, then read across the row to find your points; having to check back at the top of the table for the column headers would interfere with that. I would prefer keeping it as a list for that reason. If anyone else has an opinion, feel free to post it. Enterprisey (talk!) 05:15, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

@Enterprisey Demo here―Qwerfjkltalk 16:53, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

Bonus script bug

@Enterprisey: I just wanted to point out an error in how EnterpriseyBot added a new review once I created a Level-2 Bonus section here. It looks like I'm the only one that has tried to add a Bonus, so I'm not sure how crucial fixing it with a day left is, but I wanted to point it out in case this is used again in the future. Basically, the bot added a new review I had performed into my bonus section, presumably since it is at the bottom of the page, and on the scoreboard, it credited me with an extra bonus. I have since moved the review to the proper section. -2pou (talk) 15:33, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

Ah, sorry about that! Thanks for the report. I think I've fixed it. Enterprisey (talk!) 07:03, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

@Enterprisey This affected KylieTastic as well, here. ―Qwerfjkltalk 08:57, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

A Proposal regarding our wonderful technical champion

While those of us who are reviewing conduct reviews, we have an unsung hero, the technical guru who is making all the behind the scenes work happen. I could take a unilateral decision, but I'd like very much for us, not me, us to offer a vote of thanks to Enterprisey and to award them with the Gold Wiki Award alongside the declared winner of the reviewing challenge.

I know, or I think I know, that others have been helping behind the scenes. I think Enterprisey will be happy to share the glory with those who have weighed in.

Please let us all pile in and say a big Thank You, and to vote our individual thanks below; I'll set the ball rolling with my own. Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 19:16, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

• Thank you I vote to award you the Gold Wiki Award. I do not believe we could have done this without you. Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 19:16, 26 July 2021 (UTC)
• Agree: Enterprisey definitely deserves recognition for this. A no-brainer. ―Qwerfjkltalk 19:34, 26 July 2021 (UTC)
•  Great! yup. With tasks like this where you need a technical admin there are not many options - so effort is always appreciated. We can also say thanks for all of the tools/scripts that Enterprisey has done that make the work even possible. KylieTastic (talk) 19:46, 26 July 2021 (UTC)
• Our backlog drive cornerstone (Enterprisey) deserves the Gold Wiki Award. Like TheBirdsShedTears (talk) 20:23, 26 July 2021 (UTC)
• Agreed Thank you Enterprisey GREAT work. Theroadislong (talk) 20:27, 26 July 2021 (UTC)
• Agree Pahunkat (talk) 20:34, 26 July 2021 (UTC)
• Support. Of course. No brainer. With many thanks! –Novem Linguae (talk) 21:15, 26 July 2021 (UTC)
• Agree that's the least we should do. --DoubleGrazing (talk) 22:22, 26 July 2021 (UTC)
• Agree no doubt about this. – robertsky (talk) 07:14, 27 July 2021 (UTC)
• Thank you so much everyone! I really appreciate it. I also appreciate MusikAnimal for the backlog chart and the several people who have worked on the leaderboard table, which is a big part of any AfC backlog drive. Above all, I'm beyond impressed with how all of the participants worked together to take down one of the biggest backlogs in recent memory. Here's to a count of zero! Enterprisey (talk!) 07:55, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

  @Enterprisey please place the badge in your trophy "board" linked to this discussion, and award badges of honour to those who have helped on behalf of you and the reviewers Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 19:39, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

• Despite a rough start, I think that Enterprisey's initiative to create the drive page really got it going and prevented it from wallowing for another month as happened in June. And the technical aspects to boot? Crucial. Thanks a ton! -2pou (talk) 18:29, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
• Agree Thank you Enterprisey. The Living love ^talk 22:35, 29 July 2021 (UTC)
• Y Yes, indeed. Chris Troutman (talk) 21:15, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

Deadline?

Is there a deadline by when the re-reviews (and whatever else wash-up follows this drive) will need to be done? Only asking as several people are currently short of their 10% re-review requirement, and could see their scores drastically cut, which obviously would be a pity. --DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:59, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

As review logs were posted very late, we should certainly wait at least two or so weeks after the end of July. Enterprisey (talk!) 07:03, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

TheBirdsShedTears would get 0 points currently... ―Qwerfjkltalk 07:06, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

I am not sure what "re-reviews done" is all about. Could someone please help me understand this? And why leaderboard is showing "re-reviews done 0"? TheBirdsShedTears (talk) 07:18, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

See #Re-reviews are open for business above. ―Qwerfjkltalk 07:20, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

Pinging @TheBirdsShedTears ―Qwerfjkltalk 07:21, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

Qwerfjkl, Thank you. TheBirdsShedTears (talk) 07:33, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

Are we planning to disqualify people if they don't do re-reviews or don't do enough re-reviews? Currently the page says To ensure quality, users should re-review other user's reviews. Any user may re-review any other user's reviews if they wish. and does not mention disqualification. –Novem Linguae (talk) 07:24, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

The issue is, again, teething troubles. This drive will always be imperfect because we are reinventing the rules. What we are learning is what the rules need to be for the next one.

This time around may I suggest that we encourage everyone whose review-given tally shows a shortfall to make those re-reviews, and next time consider how we might make it a requirement.

The issue, as always, is being seen to work for quality as well as quantity. We achieve quality instinctively, almost all of us, but the re-reviews show that we also care about quality. The low number of failures in reviews show that we are doing the right job (probably) though we can argue the toss over some of the fails. What is important is to have re-reviewed sufficient for our individual consciences this time around. We also get points for every re-review! Ok, points are not a lower backlog, but they are fun to get!

Hmm. I'm rambling

tl;dr: Adopt leniency this time, and impose tighter rules next time Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 07:39, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

The original proposal by Enterprisey was Each participant must have conducted a number of re-reviews greater than 10% of their number of reviews. Otherwise, each participant's score will be capped at 10 times their number of re-reviews. ―Qwerfjkltalk 07:41, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

No, I don't think there are any plans to do that. Even the score penalty (i.e. the "capping" system) I find to be a little harsh now that I think about it. Maybe we could only require 5% of one's number of reviews, or just require a fixed number like 5 or 10. Although there are lots and lots of participants who haven't done any. Maybe a mass talk page message might help with that? Enterprisey (talk!) 07:43, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

@Enterprisey I am in full agreement with encouraging rather than mandating, certainly for this iteration of the drive process. A mass talk page message would be helpful, I think.

We need, then, to propose and discuss rules going forward based upon what we have learned this time around. Consensus for any form of mandating work to retain points is important Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 08:19, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

I've set up the start of a discussion on the main talk page. This deals with drives after this one Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 09:05, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

Also I would mention that for my entry in the re-reviews leaderboard, it says that I need to receive another re-review. What happens if you have done enough re-reviews, but other editors have not re-reviewed your reviews enough? Dreamy Jazz ^{talk to me | my contributions} 09:33, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

Women in Red

When this is all done, could someone do a count of "Biographies of Men" vs "Biographies of Women/Non-Male Humans" which were approved in this drive? I think it would be worth noting, but I don't have the querying expertise. Bogger (talk) 10:09, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

• Bogger I could get a list of all accepted articles that have {{WikiProject Biography...}} on the talk page as all should. But there is no sex/gender rating on articles and looking for " he " or " she " could be inaccurate. So it would have to be a manual assessment and count. Cheers KylieTastic (talk) 13:32, 29 July 2021 (UTC)
  • Some use of wikidata would be required I think. Bogger (talk) 14:05, 29 July 2021 (UTC)
    • Although there are gnomes that fill that out sometimes, I just checked a couple of bios I accepted and there is none. If I remember I'll do a grep tonight after work to see how many it is so far. KylieTastic (talk) 14:29, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

      • Way beyond my technical expertise but ORES is reasonably good at picking out women’s bios: WP:AfC_sorting/Culture/Biography/Women Any chance that tech could be applied to this question? Innisfree987 (talk) 19:05, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

Could look for WikiProject Women and other similar project tags. These probably populate into a category of some kind. Aren't all female biographies supposed to receive WikiProject Women tags during page curation? Strangely this is not an option in the AFCH WikiProject combo box, but it is an option in Rater. –Novem Linguae (talk) 19:58, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

• • • • Aren't all female biographies supposed to receive WikiProject Women tags during page curation? WHAT?? Where is that documented? --bonadea contributions talk 23:19, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

        Bonadea, seems obvious. If someone is a politician, I add them to WikiProject Politics. If someone is an American, I add them to WikiProject United States (or their state). If someone is a woman, I add them to WikiProject Women (different from Women In Red, which is of course more specific). I believe this is a reasonable conclusion to reach. I'd be happy to change my ways if I see documentation at WikiProject Women that says that their scope is much narrower than this though, such as only including feminists or something. –Novem Linguae (talk) 00:48, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

        • Many feminists are not women, so hopefully the wikiproject women participants would not make that kind of blunder. I'd better not comment more on this as I am not really qualified to have an opinion, but it does seem very weird (and frankly a bit offensive) to me to automatically add a project like that, which marks a person as a woman rather than a person, and to do it regardless of whether we know if a person's gender is relevant to her. Thank goodness I will never become Wikipedia notable! :-) Women in red is, as you say, a different thing which (to me) is easier to see the point of. --bonadea contributions talk 09:19, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

• I may look at using ORES later but tonight I'm exhausted so just dumping the basic: 218 bios (on the talkpage tag) with only " he " 144, only " she " 54, with both or none: 20

— Preceding unsigned comment added by KylieTastic (talk • contribs)

oh wow. Non-men recently hit 17% of the bios, whereas from this analysis, this list is c.25%. Good times!. Bogger (talk) 22:14, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

Indeed—and I manually counted the remaining 20, and I must have missed one but found 9 “he” bios, 9 “she”, and one that wasn’t actually a bio. So that’s 29%.
With infinite time/resources, it would be great to know the same stats for the declined drafts, which could tell us if gender is correlated to rate of acceptance. But since I don’t know how to do it myself I don’t want to be greedy! Thank you KylieTastic for pulling this data for us. Innisfree987 (talk) 22:23, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

• Always happy to help - and just give a shout and I'll do an update for the full month. Although 2 days is not likely to change that much, final data will be good to have. KylieTastic (talk) 22:32, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

Final update

Bogger after a day of work final results...

• Using ORES + Manual categorization: Women: 267, Other: 800 - 23% women
• Usning "He"/"She" + Manual categorization: Women: 267, Other: 799, Unknown: 1
• Manual categorizationwas for Women: 90, Other (Men): 90

List of actual articles...

Jonas Misiūnas [MALE MANUAL] G. W. Watson [HE] [ORES BIO] Kokomi Naruse [FEMALE MANUAL] Monk from Kupinovo [MALE MANUAL] Rachel J Whitaker [SHE] [ORES BIO WOMAN] Austin Barrow [MALE MANUAL] Alain Goriely [HE] [ORES BIO] Hale Zukas [HE] [ORES BIO] Juanita Head Walton [FEMALE MANUAL] Michael Frese [HE] [ORES BIO] Elisapee Ootoova [FEMALE MANUAL] Dinesh Rai Munmun [HE] [ORES BIO] Tony Langston [HE] [ORES BIO] Teodosije Maričević [HE] [ORES BIO] Marina Vladimirovna Fedorova [SHE] [ORES BIO WOMAN] Baek Seung-Jin [HE] [ORES BIO] Alexander James Inglis [HE] [ORES BIO] William Joseph Campbell (meteorologist) [HE] [ORES BIO] Deng Zhonghua [MALE MANUAL] Abby Jimenez (writer) [SHE] [ORES BIO WOMAN] Miriam Levine [SHE] [ORES BIO WOMAN] Joseph E. Garland [HE] [ORES BIO] Mingma Dorchi Sherpa [HE] [ORES BIO] Bert Waits [HE] [ORES BIO] Susan Guevara [SHE] [ORES BIO WOMAN] John Edward Delane [MALE MANUAL] Johnny Yin [HE] [ORES BIO] Atsushi Yamaguchi (judge) [HE] [ORES BIO] Indie184 [SHE] [ORES BIO WOMAN] Carol Ibe [SHE] [ORES BIO WOMAN] Brandon Blackwood [HE] [ORES BIO] Vandeth Chea [HE] [ORES BIO] Ofer Yaakobi [HE] [ORES BIO] Meers Oppenheim [HE] [ORES BIO] Stephen Thrasher [HE] [ORES BIO] Thomas Freeland [HE] [ORES BIO] Green Millsaps [HE] [ORES BIO] Parmenas Briscoe [HE] [ORES BIO] A. S. Dowd [HE] [ORES BIO] Henry Mayson [HE] [ORES BIO] Ailbhe McDonagh [SHE] [ORES BIO WOMAN] Mette Hoffman Meyer [SHE] [ORES BIO WOMAN] Dallis Smith [HE] [ORES BIO] Alison LaCroix [SHE] [ORES BIO WOMAN] Tong Zeng [MALE MANUAL] F. M. Abbott [HE] [ORES BIO] Sandra L. Richter [SHE] [ORES BIO WOMAN] Lynching of Fred Alexander [HE] [ORES BIO] Charles A. Sullivan [HE] [ORES BIO] Theo van Lint [HE] [ORES BIO] Asuka Sezaki [SHE] [ORES BIO WOMAN] Paula Berwanger [FEMALE MANUAL] Lau Sing Kee [HE] [ORES BIO] Martin Marc Cummings [HE] [ORES BIO] An Min [MALE MANUAL] Apar Gupta [HE] [ORES BIO] Anne Lundy [SHE] [ORES BIO WOMAN] Coleman Jennings [HE] [ORES BIO] Nijat Rahimov (actor) [HE] [ORES BIO] Jerry Kopel [HE] [ORES BIO] Lawson Steele [HE] [ORES BIO] Barry Rumack [HE] [ORES BIO] Jean-Paul Tarud Kuborn [HE] [ORES BIO] John Biggar (mountaineer) [MALE MANUAL] Shobha Chauhan [FEMALE MANUAL] Alfred Diston [MALE MANUAL] George English (politician) [MALE MANUAL] Jamie Smith (curler) [SHE] [ORES BIO WOMAN] Otto Bulow [MALE MANUAL] V. Irai Anbu [HE] [ORES BIO] Toney Grissom [HE] [ORES BIO] Oliver E. Crockford [HE] [ORES BIO] Robert W. Glover [HE] [ORES BIO] Edward Allen Fulton [HE] [ORES BIO] Lawrence Crute [HE] [ORES BIO] Bishop Edouard Sinayobye [HE] [ORES BIO] Georgije Letić [HE] [ORES BIO] Josif Putnik [HE] [ORES BIO] Szymon (Romańczuk) [HE] [ORES BIO] Hai ben David [HE] [ORES BIO] Kim Björkegren [HE] [ORES BIO] Stephen Patrick DeMaine Kelly [HE] [ORES BIO] Lewis Bernard Golden [HE] [ORES BIO] Véronique Miron [SHE] [ORES BIO WOMAN] Hannah Reyes Morales [SHE] [ORES BIO WOMAN] Marvin Ramirez [HE] [ORES BIO] Patricia Downes Chomley [FEMALE MANUAL] J.P. Alley [HE] [ORES BIO] Rita Horvath [SHE] [ORES BIO WOMAN] Charles Haudricourt [HE] [ORES BIO] Philip Naameh [HE] [ORES BIO] Louis-Pierre Comeau [HE] [ORES BIO] Mitsuo Tasumi [HE] [ORES BIO] Minami Hoshino [SHE] [ORES BIO WOMAN] Paulita Pappel [SHE] [ORES BIO WOMAN] Peter R. Buseck [HE] [ORES BIO] Maliverey Catilyn [HE] [ORES BIO] Dong-Sung Cho [HE] [ORES BIO] Fortune Giles [HE] [ORES BIO] Thomas Pressley [HE] [ORES BIO] James F. Peterson [HE] [ORES BIO] Mohamed Nasser Kotby [HE] [ORES BIO] Tatiana Andrianova (organist) [FEMALE MANUAL] Peyman Esmaeili [HE] [ORES BIO] Martti Kellokumpu [HE] [ORES BIO] Anthony Falco [HE] [ORES BIO] Chiara Izzi [SHE] [ORES BIO WOMAN] Bajram Begaj [MALE MANUAL] Robert J. Evans [MALE MANUAL] Peter W. Bryant [HE] [ORES BIO] Rodney H. Mabry [HE] [ORES BIO] Neela Vaswani [SHE] [ORES BIO WOMAN] Ethel Harris Hall [SHE] [ORES BIO WOMAN] Stephen A. Miller [HE] [ORES BIO] Megumi Matsushita [SHE] [ORES BIO WOMAN] Pailin Wedel [FEMALE MANUAL] Lorenzo Córdova Vianello [MALE MANUAL] John Paul Jones (Louisiana politician) [HE] [ORES BIO] Samvel Mkrtchyan [HE] [ORES BIO] Heiða Björg Hilmisdóttir [SHE] [ORES BIO WOMAN] David Bohigian [HE] [ORES BIO] Louis Jacques Filion [HE] [ORES BIO] Kosta Šumenković [HE] [ORES BIO] Juanita Jaramillo Lavadie [FEMALE MANUAL] Kate Duncan (furniture maker) [SHE] [ORES BIO WOMAN] Adam Edward Ludy [HE] [ORES BIO] Regina Sullivan [SHE] [ORES BIO WOMAN] Edward Morehouse Douglas [HE] [ORES BIO] Joseph B. Wall [HE] [ORES BIO] Stevan Vladislav Kaćanski [HE] [ORES BIO] Scott A. Smolka [HE] [ORES BIO] Dorothy Eaton [FEMALE MANUAL] Thomas L. Brunell [MALE MANUAL] Shakeel Ahmed Samdani [HE] [ORES BIO] Fabio Zanon [HE] [ORES BIO] Amna Mufti [FEMALE MANUAL] Malika Mezzane [SHE] [ORES BIO WOMAN] Tony Foster (artist) [HE] [ORES BIO] Ludwika Sosnowska [FEMALE MANUAL] Ekene Emeka Maduka [SHE] [ORES BIO WOMAN] Katharine Ordway [SHE] [ORES BIO WOMAN] Alois Christian Knoll [HE] [ORES BIO] Devin Stone [MALE MANUAL] Maame Esi Acquah Taylor [FEMALE MANUAL] Alice Athenia Lytle [SHE] [ORES BIO WOMAN] Mary E. Peabody [FEMALE MANUAL] Gordon Henry Newstead [HE] [ORES BIO] Katja Keitaanniemi [FEMALE MANUAL] Chandler Davidson [HE] [ORES BIO] Hooshyar Khayam [HE] [ORES BIO] Lynn From [SHE] [ORES BIO WOMAN] Jacqueline Vayntrub [SHE] [ORES BIO WOMAN] Tubby Raskin [HE] [ORES BIO] Egbert Jan Groenink [HE] [ORES BIO] H. F. McKay [HE] [ORES BIO] Malik Evans [HE] [ORES BIO] Philipp Holliger [MALE MANUAL] Jesse Carter (Florida politician) [HE] [ORES BIO] James A. Berthelot [HE] [ORES BIO] William C. Hazledine [HE] [ORES BIO] Frank H. Threatt [HE] [ORES BIO] Ferdinand Havis [HE] [ORES BIO] David Ortiz (politician) [HE] [ORES BIO] Koe Wetzel [HE] [ORES BIO] Mohamed Omar Hagi Mohamoud [HE] [ORES BIO] Vilawan Mangklatanakul [FEMALE MANUAL] Ani Nenkova [SHE] [ORES BIO WOMAN] Edith Howard Cook [SHE] [ORES BIO WOMAN] Jeff Bourns [HE] [ORES BIO] Piumi Hansamali [SHE] [ORES BIO WOMAN] Nick Lyons [MALE MANUAL] Amy Seiwert [FEMALE MANUAL] Adina Merenlender [SHE] [ORES BIO WOMAN] Mohammad Foyez Ullah [HE] [ORES BIO] Edgar T. Rouzeau [HE] [ORES BIO] Alfred Morgan (painter) [HE] [ORES BIO] Marvin Ramirez [HE] [ORES BIO] J. Edward Green [HE] [ORES BIO] Mark Wilde [HE] [ORES BIO] Dawon (singer) [FEMALE MANUAL] Victor Smalley [HE] [ORES BIO] Gary L. Johnson [HE] [ORES BIO] Ernesto Medina [HE] [ORES BIO] Jiquan Chen [HE] [ORES BIO] Nissim Mannathukkaren [HE] [ORES BIO] Valeska Homburg [SHE] [ORES BIO WOMAN] Gene Packwood [HE] [ORES BIO] Kristian Bezuidenhout [HE] [ORES BIO] Robert R. Ray [HE] [ORES BIO] Mateo Salvatto [HE] [ORES BIO] Anthony Rope [MALE MANUAL] Isardas [MALE MANUAL] Bekithemba Mpofu [HE] [ORES BIO] Alev Erisir [FEMALE MANUAL] Richard Walter Pohl [HE] [ORES BIO] Jón Bjarki Magnússon [HE] [ORES BIO] Rob Eden [HE] [ORES BIO] Marcia Cebulska [FEMALE MANUAL] Leonard Sinclair Sparks [HE] [ORES BIO] Ayang Utriza Yakin [HE] [ORES BIO] William Thomas Hagan [HE] [ORES BIO] C.D. Reiss [SHE] [ORES BIO WOMAN] Orange Brunt [HE] [ORES BIO] Emerik Pavić [HE] [ORES BIO] Jay Farner [HE] [ORES BIO] Jacqueline Bishop (artist) [SHE] [ORES BIO WOMAN] LeRoy Franklin Youmans [HE] [ORES BIO] Zohreh Ghaeni [SHE] [ORES BIO WOMAN] Alexa Conradi [FEMALE MANUAL] Leota Toombs [FEMALE MANUAL] Roxanne Charles-George [SHE] [ORES BIO WOMAN] Mary T. Reiley [FEMALE MANUAL] John Gai Yoh [HE] [ORES BIO] Michael J. Weber [HE] [ORES BIO] Oleksandr Hrytsenko [HE] [ORES BIO] Ruba Katrib [SHE] [ORES BIO WOMAN] Ronnie Ong [MALE MANUAL] Blanche Upright [SHE] [ORES BIO WOMAN] Danika Littlechild [FEMALE MANUAL] Avraham Aviel [HE] [ORES BIO] Terry Williams (sociologist) [MALE MANUAL] Theo de Graaf [HE] [ORES BIO] Lutz Marten [HE] [ORES BIO] Oscar W. Adams Sr. [HE] [ORES BIO] Tolliver Cleveland Callison Sr. [HE] [ORES BIO] Harry Lee (shell collector) [HE] [ORES BIO] William H. Copeland [HE] [ORES BIO] Charly Arnolt [SHE] [ORES BIO WOMAN] Harry Smulders [HE] [ORES BIO] Jose Antonio Dominguez [HE] [ORES BIO] Harry Dahlberg [HE] [ORES BIO] Max Hermans [HE] [ORES BIO] Kenneth Möllersten [MALE MANUAL] Alistair Walker [HE] [ORES BIO] Stephen de Boer [HE] [ORES BIO] Bill Hansen (scientist) [HE] [ORES BIO] Robert Waldo Brunelle Jr. [HE] [ORES BIO] Mohammad Farhad Azimi [HE] [ORES BIO] Terry Riley (broadcaster) [HE] [ORES BIO] Kul Prasad KC [HE] [ORES BIO] Aigerim Tazhi [SHE] [ORES BIO WOMAN] Jürgen Howaldt [HE] [ORES BIO] André Peperkoorn [HE] [ORES BIO] Andre Rosey Brown [HE] [ORES BIO] Monty Soutar [HE] [ORES BIO] Marla Messing [SHE] [ORES BIO WOMAN] Karen Villeda [SHE] [ORES BIO WOMAN] Chris Middlebrook [HE] [ORES BIO] Paul Reuter (lawyer) [HE] [ORES BIO] Lea-Sophie Cramer [SHE] [ORES BIO WOMAN] Carlo Belli [HE] [ORES BIO] Eddie Fitte [HE] [ORES BIO] Joachim von Braun [HE] [ORES BIO] Karen Anand [SHE] [ORES BIO WOMAN] Anna Maria Cesarini Sforza [SHE] [ORES BIO WOMAN] Charles H. Sperry [HE] [ORES BIO] Edwin J. McEnelly [HE] [ORES BIO] Marily Nika [SHE] [ORES BIO WOMAN] Kristine Klugman [SHE] [ORES BIO WOMAN] Robert V. Welch [HE] [ORES BIO] Daniel Lacalle [HE] [ORES BIO] Hans Jacob Arnold Kreyberg [HE] [ORES BIO] Gabriela Torres Olivares [SHE] [ORES BIO WOMAN] Nikolai Piskunov [HE] [ORES BIO] Holly Macve [SHE] [ORES BIO WOMAN] Heather Morrison [FEMALE MANUAL] Peter A. McCullough [HE] [ORES BIO] Joan Lader [SHE] [ORES BIO WOMAN] Borna Derakhshani [HE] [ORES BIO] Foluke Adeboye [SHE] [ORES BIO WOMAN] Sandra Oudkirk [SHE] [ORES BIO WOMAN] L. Francis Griffin [HE] [ORES BIO] Rosemary Kayess [SHE] [ORES BIO WOMAN] Marietu Tenuche [SHE] [ORES BIO WOMAN] Pedro Wonaeamirri [HE] [ORES BIO] Lav Anikita Filolog [HE] [ORES BIO] Annie Cattrell [FEMALE MANUAL] Vladimir Seixas [HE] [ORES BIO] Abdul Waseh Basit [MALE MANUAL] Abshir Aden Ferro [HE] [ORES BIO] Edson Sithole [HE] [ORES BIO] Lê Hiền Minh [SHE] [ORES BIO WOMAN] John Peyton Cooke [HE] [ORES BIO] Jonathan I ben Abiathar [HE] [ORES BIO] Americus Mayo [HE] [ORES BIO] Du Yaxiong [HE] [ORES BIO] Rose Glass [FEMALE MANUAL] Jack C. Richards [HE] [ORES BIO] Daniel K. Winn [HE] [ORES BIO] Kit Miyamoto [HE] [ORES BIO] Gaetano Ciancio [MALE MANUAL] Philip Bath [HE] [ORES BIO] Gloria Oyarzabal [SHE] [ORES BIO WOMAN] Mark Molloy [MALE MANUAL] Elizabeth "Betty" Hayes [FEMALE MANUAL] Shlomo Simcha [HE] [ORES BIO] Peter Trapa [HE] [ORES BIO] Arthur der Weduwen [HE] [ORES BIO] Jazz Thornton [FEMALE MANUAL] Charley Havlat [HE] [ORES BIO] Gertrude Warden [FEMALE MANUAL] Gregor Gustav Adolf Tobler [HE] [ORES BIO] Haruichi Furudate [MALE MANUAL] Ibrahim Assaf [HE] [ORES BIO] Diana Malivani [FEMALE MANUAL] Harriet A. Glazebrook [SHE] [ORES BIO WOMAN] David Day (Canadian author) [HE] [ORES BIO] Robbie Strazynski [HE] [ORES BIO] Keita Morimoto [MALE MANUAL] Dana Trent [SHE] [ORES BIO WOMAN] P. B. Salim [HE] [ORES BIO] Aristede Dejoie [HE] [ORES BIO] Barbara Barnard Smith [SHE] [ORES BIO WOMAN] Charles P. Findley [HE] [ORES BIO] Maro (singer) [HE] [ORES BIO] Bill Harlow (wrestler) [HE] [ORES BIO] Anna Moir Rennie [SHE] [ORES BIO WOMAN] Sammy Odom [HE] [ORES BIO] William Utermohlen [HE] [ORES BIO] Kim Siever [HE] [ORES BIO] Beat H. Gähwiler [HE] [ORES BIO] Sina Rabbany [HE] [ORES BIO] Frederick Nash Ogden [HE] [ORES BIO] Garry Rush [HE] [ORES BIO] Thomas Nelson Winter [MALE MANUAL] Shane Drumgold [HE] [ORES BIO] Arooj Aftab [FEMALE MANUAL] Naosaku Takahashi [MALE MANUAL] Bruce A. Wright [MALE MANUAL] John T. Shuften [HE] [ORES BIO] Ronald Roberts (veterinarian) [HE] [ORES BIO] J. Allan Cash [HE] [ORES BIO] David Sabin [HE] [ORES BIO] Sebron Williams Dawson [HE] [ORES BIO] Peter Marralwanga [HE] [ORES BIO] Martin Eisend [HE] [ORES BIO] Fionn Ferreira [HE] [ORES BIO] Tim Gorski [MALE MANUAL] H. Balasubramaniam [HE] [ORES BIO] Khalid Masud Gondal [HE] [ORES BIO] Henrik Harder [HE] [ORES BIO] Kate Pahl [FEMALE MANUAL] Pasquale De Bonis [HE] [ORES BIO] Baby Kumari [FEMALE MANUAL] Daniel Fardon [HE] [ORES BIO] Arthur Baldwin Turnure [HE] [ORES BIO] Hunter Reese Peña [MALE MANUAL] Harrison Stewart [HE] [ORES BIO] Sylvio de Vasconcellos [HE] [ORES BIO] Chido Nwokocha [HE] [ORES BIO] Konstantin Nenadović [HE] [ORES BIO] Shin Eun-mi [SHE] [ORES BIO WOMAN] Dana Dattelbaum [SHE] [ORES BIO WOMAN] Duke Xuan of Wey [MALE MANUAL] Luigi Arialdo Radicati di Brozolo [HE] [ORES BIO] Duke Kao of Lu [HE] [ORES BIO] Duke Yang of Lu [HE] [ORES BIO] Prasanna Chandrasekera [HE] [ORES BIO] Anca Damian [SHE] [ORES BIO WOMAN] Josie James [FEMALE MANUAL] Bériou [MALE MANUAL] Falguni Nayar [SHE] [ORES BIO WOMAN] Phil De Luna [HE] [ORES BIO] Wojciech Rychlewicz [HE] [ORES BIO] Xavier Ros-Oton [HE] [ORES BIO] Maher Bitar [HE] [ORES BIO] Lyman B. Sperry [MALE MANUAL] Maria Pergay [SHE] [ORES BIO WOMAN] Lorenzo Simonelli (manager) [HE] [ORES BIO] WAVEBOY [MALE MANUAL] Eliza Hayley [SHE] [ORES BIO WOMAN] Giorgi Mamaladze [HE] [ORES BIO] Kim Border [HE] [ORES BIO] Millie E. Hale [SHE] [ORES BIO WOMAN] Maria da Graça Samo [FEMALE MANUAL] David Millar (civil servant) [HE] [ORES BIO] Vićentije Krdžić [HE] [ORES BIO] John Carraway [HE] [ORES BIO] Ambrose Henderson [HE] [ORES BIO] Regep Aga [HE] [ORES BIO] Cicero Mitchell [HE] [ORES BIO] Matthew T. Newsom [HE] [ORES BIO] John Newell (Mississippi) [HE] [ORES BIO] A. B. DeComathiere [HE] [ORES BIO] Joseph Julien Monette [HE] [ORES BIO] Eustace Hale Ball [HE] [ORES BIO] Joel Michael Reynolds [HE] [ORES BIO] Datus C. Proper [HE] [ORES BIO] Sylvester Sivertsen [MALE MANUAL] Emi Koyama [SHE] [ORES BIO WOMAN] Adalberto Garelli [HE] [ORES BIO] Van Dorn Hooker [HE] [ORES BIO] Zhalgas Zhumagulov [HE] [ORES BIO] Hey-Kyoung Lee [SHE] [ORES BIO WOMAN] Ilia Topuria [HE] [ORES BIO] Ben Heyes [HE] [ORES BIO] Norman Zamcheck [MALE MANUAL] Michael Ciannilli [HE] [ORES BIO] Santhosh Damodharan [MALE MANUAL] T. Spicer Curlett [HE] [ORES BIO] Juri Knorr [HE] [ORES BIO] Howard Philips Smith [HE] [ORES BIO] Katie Hetland [FEMALE MANUAL] Gertrud Höhler [SHE] [ORES BIO WOMAN] Cathryn Mittelheuser [FEMALE MANUAL] Frederick Ferdinand Moore [HE] [ORES BIO] Maude Dickinson [FEMALE MANUAL] Mustafa Afridi [HE] [ORES BIO] H. C. Tounoir [HE] [ORES BIO] Jose Jaime Espina [HE] [ORES BIO] Jean Zyromski [HE] [ORES BIO] Harold Webb [HE] [ORES BIO] Hiram S. Gilmore [HE] [ORES BIO] J. Henry Burch [HE] [ORES BIO] Kenny Golde (writer and director) [HE] [ORES BIO] Laurin Talese [FEMALE MANUAL] Kari Liuhto [HE] [ORES BIO] Lisa Wilhoit (actress) [FEMALE MANUAL] Temi Otedola [FEMALE MANUAL] Adam Frampton [MALE MANUAL] Piet Gerards [HE] [ORES BIO] Baruch Schieber [HE] [ORES BIO] Steven Grinspoon [HE] [ORES BIO] Walter Orlinsky [HE] [ORES BIO] Thierry Lataste [HE] [ORES BIO] Lewis Persely [HE] [ORES BIO] Osinachi (digital artist) [HE] [ORES BIO] Brendan Carr (physician) [HE] [ORES BIO] Robin Rue Simmons [FEMALE MANUAL] Andrew Rohl [HE] [ORES BIO] Samir Mohanty [HE] [ORES BIO] Samir Mohanty [HE] [ORES BIO] Chippy Nonstop [SHE] [ORES BIO WOMAN] Karolina Zmarlak [SHE] [ORES BIO WOMAN] Tasha-Nicole Terani [FEMALE MANUAL] Jamarra Ugle-Hagan [HE] [ORES BIO] Christina Colclough [SHE] [ORES BIO WOMAN] Claire Hédon [SHE] [ORES BIO WOMAN] Neil Grant (potter) [HE] [ORES BIO] Richard J. Hinton [HE] [ORES BIO] Tommy Kenter [HE] [ORES BIO] Boris Milev [HE] [ORES BIO] Jerry McCabe (American football) [HE] [ORES BIO] Nick Gallery [HE] [ORES BIO] Joe Planansky [MALE MANUAL] Jenny Hammond [SHE] [ORES BIO WOMAN] Marianna Muntianu [FEMALE MANUAL] James Alcorn Glover [HE] [ORES BIO] Anna Pestalozzi-Schulthess [FEMALE MANUAL] Guddi Devi [FEMALE MANUAL] Perry Fitzpatrick [MALE MANUAL] Samuel Small [HE] [ORES BIO] David Jarrett Collins [HE] [ORES BIO] [1387] Reached Wikipedia:Articles for creation/recent invalid comment: Disappearance of Mekayla Bali [FEMALE MANUAL] Shelley Moore (educator) [FEMALE MANUAL] Claire Bidwell Smith [SHE] [ORES BIO WOMAN] Stuart Crow [MALE MANUAL] Robert Adam (architect, born 1948) [HE] [ORES BIO] Jin Tingbiao [HE] [ORES BIO] Keila Vall de la Ville [SHE] [ORES BIO WOMAN] Li Xiaolai [HE] [ORES BIO] Ronni Solbert [SHE] [ORES BIO WOMAN] Lewis Cecil Gray [HE] [ORES BIO] Jovan Stefanović Vilovski [HE] [ORES BIO] Nicola Denzey Lewis [SHE] [ORES BIO WOMAN] Poompat Iam-samang [HE] [ORES BIO] Yang Zhengdao [HE] [ORES BIO] LØLØ [FEMALE MANUAL] Uglješa Bogunović [MALE MANUAL] Naum Bozda [HE] [ORES BIO] Jean Edmonds [SHE] [ORES BIO WOMAN] Inke Maris [SHE] [ORES BIO WOMAN] Jason Liang [HE] [ORES BIO] Geneva Gay [FEMALE MANUAL] Fabrice Jaumont [HE] [ORES BIO] Jirina Knobloch [SHE] [ORES BIO WOMAN] Joe Reece Salter [HE] [ORES BIO] Olley Maruma [HE] [ORES BIO] Lucia Runkle [SHE] [ORES BIO WOMAN] Prabhudas Patel [HE] [ORES BIO] Michael Brainin [HE] [ORES BIO] Raad Shakir [HE] [ORES BIO] Jeffrey A. Remington [HE] [ORES BIO] Richard Konteh [HE] [ORES BIO] D. R. Fraser Taylor [HE] [ORES BIO] Julian Reichelt [HE] [ORES BIO] Estelle Thompson (painter) [SHE] [ORES BIO WOMAN] Corina Apostol [SHE] [ORES BIO WOMAN] Leonard Shuffrey [HE] [ORES BIO] Wolfgang Baer [HE] [ORES BIO] Sue Hardesty [SHE] [ORES BIO WOMAN] Ted Chapin [HE] [ORES BIO] Jon Lien [HE] [ORES BIO] Hamda Al Qubaisi [SHE] [ORES BIO WOMAN] Clarence Dick [HE] [ORES BIO] Karan Singh (magician) [HE] [ORES BIO] Jeremiah Edmund Bowden Jennings [HE] [ORES BIO] Édouard des Places [HE] [ORES BIO] Jerome P. Seaton [HE] [ORES BIO] Laurent Petit [HE] [ORES BIO] George Creed [HE] [ORES BIO] Chiara Mio [SHE] [ORES BIO WOMAN] Wendell Holmes Stephenson [HE] [ORES BIO] Sarah McCammon [SHE] [ORES BIO WOMAN] Portia Zvavahera [SHE] [ORES BIO WOMAN] Vinod Kandari [HE] [ORES BIO] Eva Moseley [SHE] [ORES BIO WOMAN] Alain Ayroles [HE] [ORES BIO] Aki Cederberg [HE] [ORES BIO] Witold Roter [HE] [ORES BIO] John A. Gladysz [HE] [ORES BIO] Roger Baxter-Jones [HE] [ORES BIO] Emmett Dunn Angell [HE] [ORES BIO] Fox Fisher [MALE MANUAL] Montasser AlDe'emeh [HE] [ORES BIO] Zainab Al-Eqawi [SHE] [ORES BIO WOMAN] Elgin Gates [MALE MANUAL] Hiroshi Enatsu [HE] [ORES BIO] Ron Folman [HE] [ORES BIO] Atanas Slavov [HE] [ORES BIO] Omari Salisbury [MALE MANUAL] Peter Barry (poet) [HE] [ORES BIO] Willie Simmons (inmate) [HE] [ORES BIO] Bryan Christy [HE] [ORES BIO] Orsola de Castro [SHE] [ORES BIO WOMAN] Joseph F. McCrindle [HE] [ORES BIO] Giovan Battista Nicolosi [MALE MANUAL] Rodney Scott (author) [MALE MANUAL] Kishor S. Trivedi [HE] [ORES BIO] Stephanie Radok [SHE] [ORES BIO WOMAN] Josephat Gwajima [HE] [ORES BIO] Wayne Oquin [MALE MANUAL] Alissa Anderegg [SHE] [ORES BIO WOMAN] Thomas Lodge (Australian publican) [HE] [ORES BIO] Patricia Silveyra [SHE] [ORES BIO WOMAN] John Rainey Adkins [HE] [ORES BIO] Iwahiko Tsumanuma [HE] [ORES BIO] Donald Ashwander [HE] [ORES BIO] Rasha Kelej [FEMALE MANUAL] Irsa Ghazal [FEMALE MANUAL] Carl-Philipp Heisenberg [HE] [ORES BIO] Hussein Aoudat [HE] [ORES BIO] Jennifer V. Evans [SHE] [ORES BIO WOMAN] Kaleem Ahmad Khursheed [HE] [ORES BIO] Noriko Kamakura [SHE] [ORES BIO WOMAN] Silvia Rivas [FEMALE MANUAL] Stephen Hilger [HE] [ORES BIO] Nigel Casey [HE] [ORES BIO] Bridge (musician) [HE] [ORES BIO] Martin McCallum [HE] [ORES BIO] Robert Lukins [MALE MANUAL] Joan A. Lambert [SHE] [ORES BIO WOMAN] Sara Iverson [SHE] [ORES BIO WOMAN] Wolfgang Weber (journalist) [HE] [ORES BIO] Irfan Amin Malik [MALE MANUAL] Masaaki Kijima [MALE MANUAL] Jagdev Singh Kamalu [HE] [ORES BIO] Callum Daniel [MALE MANUAL] Boris Maciejovsky [HE] [ORES BIO] Alexey Okulov [MALE MANUAL] Elliot Bendoly [HE] [ORES BIO] Gustav Luders [HE] [ORES BIO] Ambera Wellmann [FEMALE MANUAL] Zach Everson [MALE MANUAL] Jumah Hammad [HE] [ORES BIO] Rufus Logan [HE] [ORES BIO] Wilbur Trueblood [HE] [ORES BIO] Christo Grozev [HE] [ORES BIO] Stevan Branovački [HE] [ORES BIO] Aaron Bergeron [HE] [ORES BIO] Margaret C. Campbell [SHE] [ORES BIO WOMAN] Lucy Mensing [FEMALE MANUAL] William Wilson Elwang [HE] [ORES BIO] Petar Đorđević Džoda [MALE MANUAL] Nafe Singh Rathee [HE] [ORES BIO] RabidAnce [HE] [ORES BIO] Yoshiko Noguchi [SHE] [ORES BIO WOMAN] Bernadette Harvey [SHE] [ORES BIO WOMAN] Brad Walls [MALE MANUAL] Adebesin Folarin [HE] [ORES BIO] Lawrence Aaron Nixon [HE] [ORES BIO] Yan Xujia [HE] [ORES BIO] Yasmine El-Mehairy [FEMALE MANUAL] Mário Lago [HE] [ORES BIO] Geoffrey Michael Gadd [HE] [ORES BIO] Alan Pearson [HE] [ORES BIO] Trevor Wignall [MALE MANUAL] Allan Barry Stone [HE] [ORES BIO] Alpheus Ellis [MALE MANUAL] Magora Kennedy [SHE] [ORES BIO WOMAN] John C. Graves [HE] [ORES BIO] John W. Jones (Alabama politician) [HE] [ORES BIO] Tobias Adrian [HE] [ORES BIO] Christopher T. Po [HE] [ORES BIO] Les Brown (journalist) [MALE MANUAL] Joseph Oqua Ansa [HE] [ORES BIO] Jayshree Dutt Sengupta [SHE] [ORES BIO WOMAN] Samuel Koku Anyidoho [HE] [ORES BIO] Muhammed Gwady [HE] [ORES BIO] Mark Goudie [HE] [ORES BIO] Jawaad Khan [HE] [ORES BIO] William Parham [HE] [ORES BIO] Aaron Mensing [HE] [ORES BIO] Jill Venton [SHE] [ORES BIO WOMAN] Luis Miguel Pinho [MALE MANUAL] Kristina Micheva [SHE] [ORES BIO WOMAN] Zubair Hasan [HE] [ORES BIO] David Knowles (engineer) [HE] [ORES BIO] Rodrigo Nascimento [HE] [ORES BIO] Mateusz Gamrot [HE] [ORES BIO] Thomas A. Wright Sr. [HE] [ORES BIO] Richard Walling [HE] [ORES BIO] Nicholas Temperley [HE] [ORES BIO] Jared Groce [HE] [ORES BIO] Anne McCoy [SHE] [ORES BIO WOMAN] Biddy Wood [HE] [ORES BIO] Linda Mabhena-Olagunju [SHE] [ORES BIO WOMAN] Ilse de Ziah [SHE] [ORES BIO WOMAN] Elcin Barker Ergun [SHE] [ORES BIO WOMAN] Prasanna Nair [SHE] [ORES BIO WOMAN] Zanny Begg [SHE] [ORES BIO WOMAN] Lawrie Powell [HE] [ORES BIO] August Kiehl [HE] [ORES BIO] Shin-ichi Sakamoto [MALE MANUAL] Matthieu Wyart [HE] [ORES BIO] George Habib Bebawi [HE] [ORES BIO] Roberta Marinelli [FEMALE MANUAL] Frederick James McCauley [HE] [ORES BIO] Viktor Perelman [HE] [ORES BIO] Vincent Cross [HE] [ORES BIO] Cathryn Clüver Ashbrook [SHE] [ORES BIO WOMAN] Juliette Leong [SHE] [ORES BIO WOMAN] Mike Seager Thomas [HE] [ORES BIO] Judith Grassle [FEMALE MANUAL] Kelly Goto [SHE] [ORES BIO WOMAN] Karin Nordmeyer [SHE] [ORES BIO WOMAN] Kurgoqo Atajuq [MALE MANUAL] Stanislas Wrotnowski [HE] [ORES BIO] George Washington Bolton [HE] [ORES BIO] Yaeta Endo [HE] [ORES BIO] Charles W. Lowell [HE] [ORES BIO] Isaac Brockenton [HE] [ORES BIO] Augusto Barros [HE] [ORES BIO] Greger Larson [MALE MANUAL] Simon Davidson [HE] [ORES BIO] Polina Kanis [FEMALE MANUAL] Mary Elizabeth Livingston [FEMALE MANUAL] Leigh Janiak [FEMALE MANUAL] Robert Anderson (Australian Aboriginal elder) [HE] [ORES BIO] Edward Wooler [HE] [ORES BIO] Flora Dungan [SHE] [ORES BIO WOMAN] Serge Barjansky [HE] [ORES BIO] Elizabeth Carrington Pope [SHE] [ORES BIO WOMAN] Kasper Torsting [HE] [ORES BIO] Vikram Dev [MALE MANUAL] Kiki Willems [SHE] [ORES BIO WOMAN] Christine Simmons [SHE] [ORES BIO WOMAN] Fumiko Ishioka [SHE] [ORES BIO WOMAN] Joel Lexchin [HE] [ORES BIO] Joseph Rogers (neuroscientist) [HE] [ORES BIO] Willard B. Gatewood [HE] [ORES BIO] Thomas Masterson (American Revolution) [MALE MANUAL] Amer Alrjoub [HE] [ORES BIO] Geoffrey Eustace Blight [HE] [ORES BIO] Wayne Miner [HE] [ORES BIO] Morton Myles [HE] [ORES BIO] Peter M. Schneider [HE] [ORES BIO] Charles Samuel Green [HE] [ORES BIO] Andrew Weitz [HE] [ORES BIO] John Baptist Lafargue [HE] [ORES BIO] Melissanthi Mahut [FEMALE MANUAL] Pierre Pinson [HE] [ORES BIO] Marc Gruber [HE] [ORES BIO] Michael Zittle Jr. [HE] [ORES BIO] Scott Douglas Miller [HE] [ORES BIO] Alisa Solomon [SHE] [ORES BIO WOMAN] Carla Cáceres [SHE] [ORES BIO WOMAN] Jennifer B. Glass [SHE] [ORES BIO WOMAN] Loren Williams [HE] [ORES BIO] Khalil Ahmad Khalil [HE] [ORES BIO] Grace Snively [SHE] [ORES BIO WOMAN] Salman Eliyahu [HE] [ORES BIO] Nicolas Aguzin [HE] [ORES BIO] Fred Dewey (author) [HE] [ORES BIO] Carlos Mercado [HE] [ORES BIO] Mahmadali Hayit [HE] [ORES BIO] Hiten Noonwal [?] [ORES BIO] REVIEW Heiner Fangerau [HE] [ORES BIO] Frank La Roche [HE] [ORES BIO] Jiji Guitar [SHE] [ORES BIO WOMAN] Santosh Kesari [HE] [ORES BIO] Rami Elias [HE] [ORES BIO] Jennifer Stojkovic [SHE] [ORES BIO WOMAN] Carsten Knobel [HE] [ORES BIO] Pedro Diaz (boxing) [HE] [ORES BIO] Max Lewkowicz [MALE MANUAL] Sandra Leal [SHE] [ORES BIO WOMAN] Dragutin Pećić [HE] [ORES BIO] Alexey G. Ryazanov [MALE MANUAL] Furqan Qureshi [HE] [ORES BIO] Lorenzo Crasso [MALE MANUAL] Robert Castagnon [MALE MANUAL] Mateša Antun Kuhačević [HE] [ORES BIO] Davian Chester [HE] [ORES BIO] Samuel J. Keith [HE] [ORES BIO] Moses Lugassy [HE] [ORES BIO] Parminder Singh (rower) [HE] [ORES BIO] Horst Frenz [HE] [ORES BIO] K J Manoj Lal [HE] [ORES BIO] Pradeep Nair [MALE MANUAL] Francisco Reynés [HE] [ORES BIO] Mahmood Hossain [HE] [ORES BIO] Manzoor Ahmad Malik [HE] [ORES BIO] Shai Azoulay [HE] [ORES BIO] D. Vedavyas Kamath [HE] [ORES BIO] Martha Chikuni [SHE] [ORES BIO WOMAN] Andrey Aksenov [HE] [ORES BIO] Meghan Grieves [SHE] [ORES BIO WOMAN] Daniele Moyal-Sharrock [FEMALE MANUAL] Mostafa Azkia [HE] [ORES BIO] Sage Frederick Lewis [HE] [ORES BIO] Kim Hammer [HE] [ORES BIO] Peter V. Zima [HE] [ORES BIO] Petar Mišić (general) [HE] [ORES BIO] Mason Lamar Williams [HE] [ORES BIO] Sebastian Dabovich [HE] [ORES BIO] Shikome (drummer) [HE] [ORES BIO] Hélène Gassin [FEMALE MANUAL] Chamu Chiwanza [HE] [ORES BIO] Leopold Immanuel Jacob van Dort [HE] [ORES BIO] Joe Sanderson [HE] [ORES BIO] Ariel Anbar [HE] [ORES BIO] Grant Horsfield [HE] [ORES BIO] Aaron Thompson (educator) [HE] [ORES BIO] Dredd Foole [HE] [ORES BIO] DJ KayWise [HE] [ORES BIO] Andreas Wil Gerdes [MALE MANUAL] Arrest of Frank Rusagara [HE] [ORES BIO] Richard B. Sobol [HE] [ORES BIO] Charles A. Appel [MALE MANUAL] Stephen Phillips (architect) [HE] [ORES BIO] Rachel Moore (arts administrator) [FEMALE MANUAL] Alden S. Gooch [HE] [ORES BIO] Giuseppe de Samuele Cagnazzi [MALE MANUAL] Sten H. Vermund [HE] [ORES BIO] Maarten Buysman [HE] [ORES BIO] Ada-Rhodes Short [FEMALE MANUAL] Sampson Edwards [MALE MANUAL] Edward Chang (neurosurgeon) [MALE MANUAL] Jack Davenport (air force officer) [HE] [ORES BIO] Elizabeth Thomson (linguist) [FEMALE MANUAL] Bernard O'Brien (microsurgeon) [HE] [ORES BIO] Danny Balin [MALE MANUAL] Brailey Sims [HE] [ORES BIO] Owase Jeelani [HE] [ORES BIO] Scott Doney [HE] [ORES BIO] Hu Houxuan [HE] [ORES BIO] Song Mingqiong [FEMALE MANUAL] Sue Roffey [FEMALE MANUAL] Helga Schuchardt [SHE] [ORES BIO WOMAN] Maoz Azaryahu [HE] [ORES BIO] Deborah LaVine [FEMALE MANUAL] Harold Frazier [HE] [ORES BIO] Mzalendo Kibunjia [HE] [ORES BIO] Erin Dolan [SHE] [ORES BIO WOMAN] Khet Singh Khangar [HE] [ORES BIO] Mike Moran (wrestler) [HE] [ORES BIO] Uroš Tešanović [HE] [ORES BIO] Milivoj J. Nikolajević [HE] [ORES BIO] Denis Jeršov [HE] [ORES BIO] Ariel Beery [HE] [ORES BIO] Vinayak Dev [HE] [ORES BIO] Ljubomir Pokorni [HE] [ORES BIO] George Berci [HE] [ORES BIO] Puy Oria [SHE] [ORES BIO WOMAN] Susan Kaprov [SHE] [ORES BIO WOMAN] Santiago Borja [HE] [ORES BIO] Joseph McKenna (Canada) [HE] [ORES BIO] Nic von Rupp [HE] [ORES BIO] Akintunde Akinleye [MALE MANUAL] Andrew Berkley Lattimore [HE] [ORES BIO] Lars Jan [HE] [ORES BIO] Antonio Giarola [HE] [ORES BIO] Lazar D. Lazarević [HE] [ORES BIO] Jovan Andjelković (general) [HE] [ORES BIO] Velimir Mihailo Teodorović [MALE MANUAL] Sebastian Wolf (artist) [HE] [ORES BIO] Andy O'Sullivan (Irish Republican) [MALE MANUAL] Tim Heatley [MALE MANUAL] Petar Kosić [HE] [ORES BIO] Willie E. Gary [HE] [ORES BIO] Martial Rose [HE] [ORES BIO] Lalan (artist) [SHE] [ORES BIO WOMAN] Branko Jovanović [HE] [ORES BIO] Ini Archibong [HE] [ORES BIO] Alfred Terry Zirkle [HE] [ORES BIO] Emily Nguyen [SHE] [ORES BIO WOMAN] Andreas von Stoichevich [HE] [ORES BIO] Shi-Chul Lee [HE] [ORES BIO] Puntsagiin Tsagaan [HE] [ORES BIO] Katherine Brown (psychologist) [SHE] [ORES BIO WOMAN] Misa Tamagawa [FEMALE MANUAL] Elliott Hasler [MALE MANUAL] Amir Mohammad Hosseini [HE] [ORES BIO] A. G. W. Sango [HE] [ORES BIO] John Wiswell [HE] [ORES BIO] Mohammad Elsanour [MALE MANUAL] Edwin Kemp Attrill [MALE MANUAL] Simon Thornley [HE] [ORES BIO] Abdullah Ateq [HE] [ORES BIO] Ghafour Youssefiani [HE] [ORES BIO] Stephen A. Jarvis [HE] [ORES BIO] Nathan A. Zepell [HE] [ORES BIO] Eldred Kurtz Means [HE] [ORES BIO] Donald W. Buchanan [HE] [ORES BIO] Norman Narotzky [HE] [ORES BIO] Aramashot Papayan [HE] [ORES BIO] Mike Nicol [HE] [ORES BIO] Paul Ulibarri [HE] [ORES BIO] Hayden Pedigo [HE] [ORES BIO] Andrei Doroshin [MALE MANUAL] Abdul Hakeem Azhari [HE] [ORES BIO] Lucio Luiz [HE] [ORES BIO] Benjamin Qi [HE] [ORES BIO] Sayyadi Abubakar Mahmoud Usman [HE] [ORES BIO] Andrew Arnautov [HE] [ORES BIO] Chen Li (singer) [FEMALE MANUAL] John Vogelstein [HE] [ORES BIO] Mauricio Lara [HE] [ORES BIO] Mammoth WVH [HE] [ORES BIO] Roger Sargent (photographer) [HE] [ORES BIO] King Isaac [HE] [ORES BIO] Katie Knipp [SHE] [ORES BIO WOMAN] Hermann Hahn (architect) [HE] [ORES BIO] Tony Clay [MALE MANUAL] Denice Zamboanga [SHE] [ORES BIO WOMAN] David Hemsoll [HE] [ORES BIO] Benjamin Van Mooy [MALE MANUAL] Vladimir Pokrovskii [HE] [ORES BIO] Spencer Pompey [HE] [ORES BIO] Alnur Ilyashev [HE] [ORES BIO] Petar Terzić [HE] [ORES BIO] Aina Dumlao [FEMALE MANUAL] Sebastian Prodanovich [MALE MANUAL] Jose Patricio de la Barcena [HE] [ORES BIO] Richard A. Smith (physician) [HE] [ORES BIO] Palakondrayudu Sugavasi [HE] [ORES BIO] Melvin Poh [HE] [ORES BIO] Saad Al-Hamidin [HE] [ORES BIO] Vladimir Boberić [HE] [ORES BIO] James Monteith [HE] [ORES BIO] Russell H. Davis [HE] [ORES BIO] Gavrilo Zmejanović [HE] [ORES BIO] Michael McGuire (actor) [HE] [ORES BIO] Georgije Nikolajević [HE] [ORES BIO] Giedrius Žibėnas [HE] [ORES BIO] Rebecca Petty [SHE] [ORES BIO WOMAN] Marko Csollich [HE] [ORES BIO] Don Schreckengost [HE] [ORES BIO] Diana Belbiţă [SHE] [ORES BIO WOMAN] Malia Paseka (taekwondo) [SHE] [ORES BIO WOMAN] Nassourdine Imavov [HE] [ORES BIO] Punahele Soriano [HE] [ORES BIO] Walter von Saint Paul-Illaire [HE] [ORES BIO] Rod David [HE] [ORES BIO] Brandon Bell (recording engineer) [HE] [ORES BIO] Adrian Yanez [HE] [ORES BIO] Dan Kirby (architect) [HE] [ORES BIO] Dmitry Borovikov [HE] [ORES BIO] Edoardo Charbon [HE] [ORES BIO] Stuart Richard Young [HE] [ORES BIO] Suchibrata Roy Choudhury [SHE] [ORES BIO WOMAN] Harry Palmer (animator) [MALE MANUAL] Wukun Wanambi [HE] [ORES BIO] Melvin Romanoff [HE] [ORES BIO] Nikola Karamarković [MALE MANUAL] Antonije Orešković [HE] [ORES BIO] Luis Ortiz Alfau [HE] [ORES BIO] Credo Harris [HE] [ORES BIO] Dan Feyer [HE] [ORES BIO] Andy Rachmianto [HE] [ORES BIO] Simon Kim [HE] [ORES BIO] Max Liboiron [MALE MANUAL] Bernie de Le Cuona [FEMALE MANUAL] Christophe Jakubyszyn [HE] [ORES BIO] Akshit Sukhija [MALE MANUAL] Raymond Legueult [HE] [ORES BIO] Himanshu Soni [MALE MANUAL] Emma DeSouza [FEMALE MANUAL] Vinnie Bagwell [FEMALE MANUAL] Franz Lipp [MALE MANUAL] Timur Turlov [HE] [ORES BIO] Hugh McLeod (Canadian minister) [HE] [ORES BIO] Daniil and David Liberman [MALE MANUAL] Unlimited L.A [HE] [ORES BIO] John Ludwig Wees [MALE MANUAL] Stephan Kirste [HE] [ORES BIO] Charles H. Turpin [HE] [ORES BIO] John Newman (sculptor) [HE] [ORES BIO] Giorgio Blais [HE] [ORES BIO] Henrique Magalhães [HE] [ORES BIO] Rudolf Rienau [HE] [ORES BIO] Tao Wang (economist) [SHE] [ORES BIO WOMAN] Noel Michele Holbrook [SHE] [ORES BIO WOMAN] Sanjay Shukla [HE] [ORES BIO] Tom Byabagamba [HE] [ORES BIO] Trevance Salmon [MALE MANUAL] Lazar Dobrić [HE] [ORES BIO] Ostoja Spuž [HE] [ORES BIO] Saïd Djabelkhir [HE] [ORES BIO] Phillip Kingston [HE] [ORES BIO] Josip Šišković [MALE MANUAL] Gary Pemberton [MALE MANUAL] Živko Dabić [HE] [ORES BIO] Qaplan I Giray [MALE MANUAL] Eustachio Pisani [HE] [ORES BIO] Begin Yoshioka [HE] [ORES BIO] Jon Cattapan [HE] [ORES BIO] Josef Josten [HE] [ORES BIO] Pauline Stuart [FEMALE MANUAL] Joseph P. Skelly [HE] [ORES BIO] Thomas Ellerby [HE] [ORES BIO] Axel Cruysberghs [HE] [ORES BIO] William Dougherty (composer) [HE] [ORES BIO] Nikola Begović [HE] [ORES BIO] Nikanor Ružičić [HE] [ORES BIO] Larry Reed (puppeteer) [HE] [ORES BIO] Ulysses Simpson Bratton [HE] [ORES BIO] Roman Feral [HE] [ORES BIO] Ramses Ramos [MALE MANUAL] Pratap Chandra Mohanty [HE] [ORES BIO] Cynthia Flynn Capers [SHE] [ORES BIO WOMAN] George L. Vaughn [HE] [ORES BIO] Mark T. Greenberg [HE] [ORES BIO] Michael Kubovy [MALE MANUAL] Pamela Ferrell [FEMALE MANUAL] Douglas Quinta Reis [HE] [ORES BIO] Alaa Shoier [HE] [ORES BIO] Bikram Singh Jaryal [MALE MANUAL] Jim Barclay (comedian) [HE] [ORES BIO] Thomas Awah [MALE MANUAL] Antonije Hadžić [HE] [ORES BIO] David Pritchard (musician) [HE] [ORES BIO] James Mellon Menzies [HE] [ORES BIO] Colin Brown (artist) [HE] [ORES BIO] Christian Soize [HE] [ORES BIO] Lobin C. Lowe [HE] [ORES BIO] Salem Assli [HE] [ORES BIO] R.K Chowdhury [HE] [ORES BIO] Matthias Grossglauser [HE] [ORES BIO] Milosh Zezelj [HE] [ORES BIO] Chen Arieli [FEMALE MANUAL] Jang Wonyoung [FEMALE MANUAL] Daniel Came [HE] [ORES BIO] Vaughn Spann [MALE MANUAL] Alexandra Carter (negotiator) [SHE] [ORES BIO WOMAN] Dhorkë Orgocka [SHE] [ORES BIO WOMAN] Daniel S. Palmer [HE] [ORES BIO] Gabriel Zada [HE] [ORES BIO] Phil Penman [HE] [ORES BIO] Nora Wilhelm [SHE] [ORES BIO WOMAN] Paola Malanotte Rizzoli [SHE] [ORES BIO WOMAN] Hugh de Lowther V [HE] [ORES BIO] Elyse Walker [FEMALE MANUAL] Philomena Essed [SHE] [ORES BIO WOMAN] Anne Miller (author) [SHE] [ORES BIO WOMAN] Rosa Planas Ferrer [SHE] [ORES BIO WOMAN] Minot Pratt [HE] [ORES BIO] Antonio Peticov [HE] [ORES BIO] Zak Skinner [HE] [ORES BIO] Yisel Tejeda [FEMALE MANUAL] Sabine Kastner [SHE] [ORES BIO WOMAN] Isidore Ostrer [HE] [ORES BIO] Phil Dunham [HE] [ORES BIO] Carl Moneyhon [HE] [ORES BIO] Madhaba Nanda Behera [MALE MANUAL] Richard West (politician) [HE] [ORES BIO] Melissa Perry (microbiologist) [SHE] [ORES BIO WOMAN] Sarjun KM [MALE MANUAL] Richmond Jay Bartlett [MALE MANUAL] Alfons Siewert [HE] [ORES BIO] Stefan Markovski [HE] [ORES BIO] Donald C. Thompson (photographer) [HE] [ORES BIO] Peter Guttorp [HE] [ORES BIO] S. V. C. Aiya [HE] [ORES BIO] Wayne Nelson (statistician) [HE] [ORES BIO] Roly Santos [HE] [ORES BIO] Bill Nelson (sports coach) [HE] [ORES BIO] Jonathan Cooper (bioengineering) [HE] [ORES BIO] Iain Pattinson [HE] [ORES BIO] Phil Lambert [HE] [ORES BIO] Virendera Singh Pathania [MALE MANUAL] James Blue (politician) [HE] [ORES BIO] Andrea Bacigalupa [HE] [ORES BIO] Zoltan Fodor (physicist) [HE] [ORES BIO] A.K. Chatterjee [HE] [ORES BIO] Theodore McNeal [HE] [ORES BIO] Theodora Stanwell-Fletcher [SHE] [ORES BIO WOMAN] Robert James Patterson [MALE MANUAL] Nurzuhairah Yazid [SHE] [ORES BIO WOMAN] David Schrooten [HE] [ORES BIO] Timothy Verdon [HE] [ORES BIO] Big Foot (Potawatomi leader) [MALE MANUAL] Marc Gruber [HE] [ORES BIO] Mary Taylor Bryan [FEMALE MANUAL] David Edward Reichle [MALE MANUAL] Dave Stachelski [HE] [ORES BIO] Zhang Er [SHE] [ORES BIO WOMAN] Vernon Edwards [HE] [ORES BIO] Darrell Grymes [HE] [ORES BIO] Jian Ma (computer scientist) [HE] [ORES BIO] Will Dean (entrepreneur) [HE] [ORES BIO] Deborah Emmanuel [SHE] [ORES BIO WOMAN] Danish Manzoor [HE] [ORES BIO] Ichrak Chaib [SHE] [ORES BIO WOMAN] Matthew Sates [HE] [ORES BIO] Brynley Stent [FEMALE MANUAL] Yangjin Lamu [SHE] [ORES BIO WOMAN] Najia Ashar [FEMALE MANUAL] Ben Weiss [HE] [ORES BIO] Murder of Jason Martin-Smith [HE] [ORES BIO] Sonya Dyhrman [SHE] [ORES BIO WOMAN] Toby Prince Brigham [MALE MANUAL] Maksym Kozytskyy [HE] [ORES BIO] John Cumbers [HE] [ORES BIO] Austin McCollum [HE] [ORES BIO] Teemu Lepaus [HE] [ORES BIO] José Alejandro Barrondo [HE] [ORES BIO] Richard Washington (climatologist) [HE] [ORES BIO] Ava Easton [FEMALE MANUAL] Melsa Ararat [SHE] [ORES BIO WOMAN] Werner Klotz [HE] [ORES BIO] Katja Schenke-Layland [SHE] [ORES BIO WOMAN] Caroline Levine [SHE] [ORES BIO WOMAN] Brian T. Edwards [HE] [ORES BIO] Barbie Kyagulanyi [FEMALE MANUAL] Joseph Pons d'Arnaud [HE] [ORES BIO] Peter Jagers [HE] [ORES BIO] Gregg Daniel [HE] [ORES BIO] Jose Perez (actor) [MALE MANUAL] Ling Shao [HE] [ORES BIO] Erzhan Elshibayev [HE] [ORES BIO] Christopher Tappen [MALE MANUAL] Alcinda Panguana [SHE] [ORES BIO WOMAN] Cecelia Watson [SHE] [ORES BIO WOMAN] Vincenzo Trani [HE] [ORES BIO] Haris Doukas [MALE MANUAL] Sunil Dutti [MALE MANUAL] Brody Brown [MALE MANUAL] Alexandra Daisy Ginsberg [SHE] [ORES BIO WOMAN] Takakento Terutora [HE] [ORES BIO] Shubhashish Jha [HE] [ORES BIO] William M. Hancock [HE] [ORES BIO] Robert A. Jensen [HE] [ORES BIO] Nikoloz Sekhniashvili [HE] [ORES BIO] Menotti Lerro [HE] [ORES BIO] Mark Mason (executive) [HE] [ORES BIO] Leo Feodoroff [HE] [ORES BIO] Jolyon Petch [MALE MANUAL] Samuel Bampfield [MALE MANUAL] Asabenkei Daikichi [HE] [ORES BIO] Asagyokusei Taiko [HE] [ORES BIO] Phan Kim Khanh [HE] [ORES BIO] Duane Graves [HE] [ORES BIO] Clare Reimers [FEMALE MANUAL] David Provoost [MALE MANUAL] Steve Horton [HE] [ORES BIO] Márta Grabócz [SHE] [ORES BIO WOMAN] Pir Muhammad Khan Shirwani [HE] [ORES BIO] Gerrit Wunder [HE] [ORES BIO] Bankroll Freddie [HE] [ORES BIO] Hvnnibvl [HE] [ORES BIO] Mathew Guest [HE] [ORES BIO] Peter Jagers [HE] [ORES BIO] Nev Callaghan [HE] [ORES BIO] Richard Davies Parker [HE] [ORES BIO] Alexandre Loupy [HE] [ORES BIO] Wessel H. Smitter [HE] [ORES BIO] Will Healy (composer) [HE] [ORES BIO] John T. Clarke [HE] [ORES BIO] Leonard Schwartz (poet) [HE] [ORES BIO] Rhodia Mann [SHE] [ORES BIO WOMAN] Mara Karlin [FEMALE MANUAL] Benjamin Z. Houlton [HE] [ORES BIO] Maneaux [MALE MANUAL] Wilhelm Brückner (luthier) [HE] [ORES BIO] Amir Ghavidel [HE] [ORES BIO] Winning Jah [HE] [ORES BIO] Ho Van Hai [HE] [ORES BIO] The 8-Bit Guy [HE] [ORES BIO] Dorieus (Rhodian athlete and naval commander) [MALE MANUAL] Musa Danladi Abubakar [HE] [ORES BIO] Rafał Brzoska [HE] [ORES BIO] Ajay Singh Jasrotia [HE] [ORES BIO] Victoria Aguiyi-Ironsi [SHE] [ORES BIO WOMAN] Sergei Ipatov [HE] [ORES BIO] Danny Chavez [HE] [ORES BIO] Mohamed al-Bambary [HE] [ORES BIO] Sukhpal Singh Bhullar [HE] [ORES BIO] Andrea Muzii [HE] [ORES BIO] Oscar Mbo [HE] [ORES BIO] Nigel Pegram [HE] [ORES BIO]

Conclusions:

• Some reviewers did not add project tags, or sometime they did but not bio
• ORES is OK but has a lot of issues, and some seriously weird mistakes

Other data

ORES fail so manual men selection "Jonas Misiūnas", "Monk from Kupinovo", "Austin Barrow", "Deng Zhonghua", "John Edward Delane", "Tong Zeng", "An Min", "John Biggar (mountaineer)", "George English (politician)", "Otto Bulow", "Bajram Begaj", "Robert J. Evans", "Lorenzo Córdova Vianello", "Thomas L. Brunell", "Devin Stone", "Philipp Holliger", "Nick Lyons", "Anthony Rope", "Isardas", "Ronnie Ong", "Terry Williams (sociologist)", "Kenneth Möllersten", "Abdul Waseh Basit", "Gaetano Ciancio", "Mark Molloy", "Haruichi Furudate", "Keita Morimoto", "Thomas Nelson Winter", "Naosaku Takahashi", "Bruce A. Wright", "Tim Gorski", "Hunter Reese Peña", "Bériou", "Lyman B. Sperry", "WAVEBOY", "Sylvester Sivertsen", "Norman Zamcheck", "Santhosh Damodharan", "Adam Frampton", "Joe Planansky", "Perry Fitzpatrick", "Stuart Crow", "Uglješa Bogunović", "Fox Fisher", "Elgin Gates", "Omari Salisbury", "Giovan Battista Nicolosi", "Rodney Scott (author)", "Wayne Oquin", "Robert Lukins", "Irfan Amin Malik", "Masaaki Kijima", "Callum Daniel", "Alexey Okulov", "Zach Everson", "Petar Đorđević Džoda", "Brad Walls", "Trevor Wignall", "Alpheus Ellis", "Les Brown (journalist)", "Luis Miguel Pinho", "Shin-ichi Sakamoto", "Kurgoqo Atajuq", "Greger Larson", "Vikram Dev", "Thomas Masterson (American Revolution)", "Max Lewkowicz", "Alexey G. Ryazanov", "Lorenzo Crasso", "Robert Castagnon", "Pradeep Nair", "Andreas Wil Gerdes", "Charles A. Appel", "Giuseppe de Samuele Cagna", "Sampson Edwards", "Edward Chang (neurosurgeon)", "Danny Balin", "Velimir Mihailo Teodorović", "Andy O'Sullivan (Irish Republican)", "Tim Heatley", "Elliott Hasler", "Mohammad Elsanour", "Tony Clay", "Edwin Kemp Attrill", "Andrei Doroshin", "Benjamin Van Mooy", "Sebastian Prodanovich", "Harry Palmer (animator)", "Nikola Karamarković", "Max Liboiron", "Akshit Sukhija", "Himanshu Soni", "Franz Lipp", "Daniil and David Liberman", "John Ludwig Wees", "Trevance Salmon", "Josip Šišković", "Gary Pemberton", "Qaplan I Giray", "Ramses Ramos", "Michael Kubovy", "Bikram Singh Jaryal", "Thomas Awah", "Vaughn Spann", "Madhaba Nanda Behera", "Sarjun KM", "Richmond Jay Bartlett", "Virendera Singh Pathania", "Robert James Patterson", "Big Foot (Potawatomi leader)", "David Edward Reichle", "Toby Prince Brigham", "Jose Perez (actor)", "Christopher Tappen", "Haris Doukas", "Sunil Dutti", "Brody Brown", "Jolyon Petch", "Samuel Bampfield", "David Provoost", "Maneaux", "Dorieus (Rhodian athlete and naval commander)", "Alfred Diston", "Duke Xuan of Wey", "Giuseppe de Samuele Cagnazzi", "Akintunde Akinleye" ORES fail so manual Women selection "Kokomi Naruse", "Juanita Head Walton", "Elisapee Ootoova", "Paula Berwanger", "Patricia Downes Chomley", "Tatiana Andrianova (organist)", "Juanita Jaramillo Lavadie", "Amna Mufti", "Ludwika Sosnowska", "Maame Esi Acquah Taylor", "Mary E. Peabody", "Katja Keitaanniemi", "Vilawan Mangklatanakul", "Amy Seiwert", "Dawon (singer)", "Alev Erisir", "Marcia Cebulska", "Alexa Conradi", "Leota Toombs", "Mary T. Reiley", "Danika Littlechild", "Heather Morrison", "Annie Cattrell", "Rose Glass", "Elizabeth ""Betty"" Hayes", "Jazz Thornton", "Gertrude Warden", "Diana Malivani", "Arooj Aftab", "Kate Pahl", "Baby Kumari", "Josie James", "Maria da Graça Samo", "Katie Hetland", "Cathryn Mittelheuser", "Maude Dickinson", "Laurin Talese", "Lisa Wilhoit (actress)", "Temi Otedola", "Robin Rue Simmons", "Tasha-Nicole Terani", "Marianna Muntianu", "Anna Pestalozzi-Schulthess", "Guddi Devi", "Disappearance of Mekayla Bali", "Shelley Moore (educator)", "LØLØ", "Geneva Gay", "Rasha Kelej", "Irsa Ghazal", "Silvia Rivas", "Ambera Wellmann", "Lucy Mensing", "Yasmine El-Mehairy", "Roberta Marinelli", "Judith Grassle", "Polina Kanis", "Mary Elizabeth Livingston", "Leigh Janiak", "Melissanthi Mahut", "Daniele Moyal-Sharrock", "Hélène Gassin", "Rachel Moore (arts administrator)", "Ada-Rhodes Short", "Elizabeth Thomson (linguist)", "Song Mingqiong", "Sue Roffey", "Deborah LaVine", "Misa Tamagawa", "Chen Li (singer)", "Aina Dumlao", "Bernie de Le Cuona", "Emma DeSouza", "Vinnie Bagwell", "Pauline Stuart", "Pamela Ferrell", "Chen Arieli", "Jang Wonyoung", "Elyse Walker", "Yisel Tejeda", "Mary Taylor Bryan", "Brynley Stent", "Najia Ashar", "Ava Easton", "Barbie Kyagulanyi", "Clare Reimers", "Mara Karlin", "Shobha Chauhan", "Pailin Wedel", "Dorothy Eaton" ORES fail false poitives - exclude non-bios "Stephanie, Cindy, Christy, Tatjana, Naomi, Hollywood", "Republic of Somaliland Representative Office in Taiwan", "2021 Pakistan Super League squads", "Topeka Plaindealer", "Vice Chair of the Federal Reserve", "Queens (American TV series)", "Minden High School (Minden, Louisiana)", "Better Days (Hedley Song)", "Dunedin Collective for Woman", "Spacehey", "Bishop School (Detroit)", "List of Melbourne Football Club seasons", "Annunciation (Artemisia Gentileschi)", "Precious Heritage Art Gallery Museum", "1988 Swatch Open – Singles", "Brazilian Syncretic Religions", "Françoise d'Eaubonne et l'écoféminisme", "Wolf Durmashkin Composition Award", "Hendrikov Family", "Dr. Cyril O. Spann Medical Office", "Howard School of International Relations", "Taisha Ryu", "Penderecki String Quartet", "Revolt of Hasan Khan Salar", "Racially motivated emergency calls", "1988 Bordeaux Open – Singles", "Orbit Culture", "2021 Women's Softball European Championship", "Ring Shout", "Grounded with Louis Theroux", "Rostam and Shaghad", "One World Family Commune", "2021 Superrace Championship", "Bourbon di Sorbello", "Lewis High School (Macon, Georgia)", "The Oyster Man", "First Baptist Church of Greater Cleveland", "All Things Go Fall Classic", "Witness Collection", "Al-Ayoubi family", "History of communication by presidents of the United States", "Portugal in the Junior Eurovision Song Contest 2021", "Women of the early East L. A. punk scene", "Light in Babylon", "KOKOKO!", "The Delightful Sausage", "Shinobu (band)", "Gualterio family", "Satellite Mode", "The Rumba Kings", "Malojian"

Cheers KylieTastic (talk) 20:07, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

KylieTastic, thank you so much! This is immensely helpful: I’m going to to share with Women in Red now. Really appreciate your work. Innisfree987 (talk) 20:21, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

WikiProject tagging for biographies

@Novem Linguae: really? I didn't know that. I've created 30+ WiR articles (not as part of any drive etc., just picking off the red list) and never tagged them in any particular way, nor do they seem to have been subsequently tagged by anyone else. The rater only offers various meetup/initiative options, which I've not chosen since, as I mentioned, I've not been party to any meetups or similar. I guess I need to look into this more. --DoubleGrazing (talk) 04:41, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

DoubleGrazing, yeah, I've never done any meetup WikiProjects. For biographies, I do WikiProject Biography, WikiProject Women if it's a woman, then their country/state and occupation. Here's an example: Talk:Joan A. Lambert. I'm happy to hear how others do WikiProject tagging too. –Novem Linguae (talk) 05:10, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

@Novem Linguae: interesting; I'm not sure I've ever used the 'Women' project, although I can't be sure. I just looked up a random one I've made: Talk:Hanna Granfelt. I seem to have tagged it for 'Women in music' and 'Women's history' (the latter perhaps incorrectly; they have quite specific criteria, which this may not meet). The reason why I say "can't be sure" and "seem to have" is that somehow I always have to rethink the project ratings from scratch, hence I'm probably not being very consistent about it. Which is pretty poor, TBH. --DoubleGrazing (talk) 05:27, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

• I am working on an update with ORES - but I have found two issues.

1. large numbers of articles with no {{WikiProject Biography...}} - so manually adding
2. ORES has a lot of false positives!Such as 1988 Swatch Open – Singles is rated 80% a bio. KylieTastic (talk) 14:54, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

The Kilo Klub

Just wanted to acknowledge the 1,000+ tally of both Theroadislong and TheBirdsShedTears — between them, they've cleared nearly half the backlog. Flippin' 'eck, that's some massive effort! --DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:16, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

My wife might leave me if I do much more...better get some hoovering done! Theroadislong (talk) 09:22, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

DoubleGrazing, thank you, but this is the result of teamwork to clear the backlog. Everyone who participated in this drive has done a great work. Now, I have stopped reviewing old AfC submissions as they seem difficult as well as complicated. I am actively keeping an eye on new problematic AfC submissions to keep this backlog under 140. TheBirdsShedTears (talk) 09:27, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

Zombie draft

Anyone know what's happening with this Draft:Tabla Maestro Pt. Anil Palit? It kind of looks like it's been submitted, but then again not quite. (Or have I missed something?) Would hate it if this stopped us reaching zero... :) --DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:20, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

@DoubleGrazing solved it. Submitted on behalf of the creating editor and declined it Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 09:23, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

Finishing the drive

The drive is done and so is the backlog. Good job all! I haven't been keeping up with the re-reviews, so I just did some of those. Should re-reviews be extended to, say, a week after the drive's conclusion? Tol (talk | contribs) @ 01:16, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

We came shockingly close to getting the backlog down to zero! At one point we had just 3 or 4 drafts remaining. Phenomenal job by all, whether you made 1, 100, 1000 reviews and anything inbetween. With regards to the re-reviews, I think they should be extended for atleast a few days.--🌀Locomotive207-talk🌀 01:26, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

@Locomotive207: I'm pretty sure we did get it down to zero at times! Tol (talk | contribs) @ 02:21, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

Yes, we hit zero, see screenshots at WT:AFC. I also believe based on some conversations I've read that re-reviews will be given another 1-2 weeks, and that they will not be doing a "no re-review" penalty for this particular drive. Although feel free to correct me if I'm wrong / if consensus changed. –Novem Linguae (talk) 02:26, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

Yes, it did go down to zero, I saw it with my very own eyes. :) But I guess that does raise a nit-picking point (for next time): is the target met when the counter hits zero (i) at any time during the drive, or (ii) does it have to be zero when the drive ends, or (iii) both? Option (i) would make it possible to have a drive which goes down to zero, say, three weeks in, then everyone up sticks and goes home, and the counter does a 'hockey stick' and finishes with hundreds of drafts in the queue. I wouldn't call that 'mission accomplished', exactly. So maybe option (iii)? (Sorry if this has been discussed and decided already.) --DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:21, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

Yes, I figure we could keep re-reviews open for another week or two, and then end it and distribute awards. There should be penalties for lack of re-reviews (and I won't be implementing any, unless there's consensus to); they weren't publicized enough, no scripts or processes were in place to make them less tedious, and the review logs and leaderboard went up only halfway through the month. Enterprisey (talk!) 05:26, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

Enterprisey, If an editor has reviewed 100 AfC submissions, how many re-reviews they need to done? TheBirdsShedTears (talk) 16:23, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

TheBirdsShedTears, at least 10 re-reviews. – robertsky (talk) 16:30, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

I'm not sure what the bot should count a re-review of meh as, so I'm not going to count it. Note, for everyone else, that anything besides exactly pass, fail, or invalid as the bolded text might not be counted. Enterprisey (talk!) 09:45, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

Chris troutman, what counting method did you use for this leaderboard edit that significantly changed the numbers? Enterprisey (talk!) 05:19, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

@Enterprisey: I followed the posted instructions on how to update the table. The history tab indicated it hadn't been updated in a few days. I suppose I must have made an error and I see my edit was since reverted. Chris Troutman (talk) 10:02, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

Hey Chris troutmanthose instructions should have been removed (and now have been). Although the script is locked to July, the table it uses recentchanges_userindex only covers the last 31 days, so running it yesterday meant it would not have contained the first 5-6 days of data. Cheers KylieTastic (talk) 12:11, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

Ah, thanks KylieTastic for the explanation, and thanks Chris for taking the effort to update the table (even though it turned out that the query had that issue). Enterprisey (talk!) 00:48, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

@Tol @Chris troutman @DoubleGrazing @Enterprisey @KylieTastic @Locomotive207 @Novem Linguae @Robertsky @TheBirdsShedTears It has now been two weeks. Should we finish the drive and award prizes now? ― Qwerfjkltalk 21:08, 15 August 2021 (UTC)

@Qwerfjkl: I reckon so. This is fast fading into memory. And with ~500 drafts already in the review queue, would be good to make a bit of noise to raise awareness again. Cheers, --DoubleGrazing (talk) 21:27, 15 August 2021 (UTC)

As I participated in the drive it's not for me to say. The procedures for this drive should have been laid out prior to the start. Chris Troutman (talk) 22:01, 15 August 2021 (UTC)

Qwerfjkl, I think this drive should be closed. I don't see any good reason to keep this drive unfinished. TheBirdsShedTears (talk) 04:57, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

Sounds like a good idea. Tol (talk | contribs) @ 15:50, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, re-reviews can probably stop. I'll still count the late ones (posted after two weeks were up), as nobody said what would happen to them. I'm working on a script to post the barnstars. Enterprisey (talk!) 08:31, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

I didn't get around to finishing it, and I'm on vacation next week. But I'll get to them after, don't worry. (If someone wants to do it manually, I have no objections, but it's a lot of work!) Enterprisey (talk!) 08:35, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

Script seems better than manual work. It is nearly a difficult task to distribute the awards manually. TheBirdsShedTears (talk) 05:26, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

Leaderboard code published

I got around to publishing the code I used to create the review logs and leaderboard: https://git.sr.ht/~enterprisey/enwp-afc-backlog-drive/tree. It's written in Rust and uses both Magnus's excellent mediawiki crate and a new MediaWiki client library that I haven't published yet. Enterprisey (talk!) 00:50, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

Seems not insane. The couple of issues I thought I found just showed me that the drive didn't work the way I thought it worked. For the next drive we need to make it clearer that we're running on UTC (some of us live in GMT +12 / +13). Stuartyeates (talk) 10:32, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

Despondent fatigue

Having been on a very relaxing holiday in the wilds of Wales with very little internet access, I have now returned and see that the back log has already leapt up from zero to 272, I rather enjoyed my time away from the stresses of WP:AFC and don’t feel in any rush to dive back in, maybe I’ll take a back seat for a while. Theroadislong (talk) 15:42, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

@Theroadislong A natural reaction. I think everyone is feeling the same. But the overall outcome me is that the backlog is at a manageable level for the moment Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 16:20, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

Definitely don't overwork yourself—glad to hear you were able to take a break. Could not be more well-deserved. I'm not sure where I can see how many drafts are coming in a day, but the figure in my head I saw somewhere was 300 a day, so 272 means we've still done 90% of August submissions so far. — Bilorv (talk) 13:55, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

Awards distributed...

...But has anyone given the Gold Wiki Award we agreed on for Enterprisey? Pahunkat (talk) 16:47, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for reminding. I think we forgot. Pahunkat, please go ahead and give Enterpriesey Gold Wiki Award. TheBirdsShedTears (talk) 17:04, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and done that. Hopefully it looks alright, anyone who wants to do so can edit the message I left. Pahunkat (talk) 10:47, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

Very good Enterprisey, I think the script skipped my new username as I was renamed prior to the distributions. Thanks The Living love ^talk 06:50, 2 December 2021 (UTC)