== GA Backlog == 

 During this current Backlog drive for GA nominations I have noticed a number of things.  
 *Many, if not most reviews are ending in a "Pass". 
 *Fail is NOT as good a term to use as "Not Listed".  suggested that and I like it. 
 *Even if I attempt to assist an editor and give pinpoint reasoning, show the exact MoS guidline and state out right what is wrong and even provide further reference material....I still get an argument with some. 
 *It seems less less likely that a new member of just over two months will be questioned for 23 pass reviews in just over a week than I as a member of several years would get for failing 5 aricles in the same amount of time. 
 *"Overly Harsh" is less acceptable than overly kind in the backlog process. 
 *There may be a misunderstanding or misperception on my part as to what the main focus of the backlog drive and/or review for GA is about. 

 I see the review as both, a way to improve the article and decide if it meets criteria for GA listing. As GA is not the top standard at Wikipedia I also feel it helps to prepare both the article and editors towards even further improvements towards Feature Article status. 

 Of the 5 failed articles 2 have questioned the fail. One going to GAR and another going onto that GAR in bad faith to complain about the number of failed reviews I have made and shop for sympathy of editors on that page to his cause. 

 Two other editors have been good enough to admit that the articles still need work and thank me for the added comments and took them seriously. The last "Fail" review was for an article by a member who just had an "indefinite ban" for copyright infringment lifted (with a mentor) and has not been cooperative on issues over MoS. On the last two reviews, I made sure to make very specific comments, list what I felt should be done and link to the relevent guideline. While some work has been done to address problems I simply don't see a review as being a place to debate policy and guidelines. Yes, if I make a mistake it should be pointed out and I will line out the statement, apologise and move forward. However when the review becomes a debate over what is or is not a part of GA criteria the editor does not take into conideration such things as the Manual of Style guidlines for the article or images, etc. I see no further reason to continue the review. As a reviewer, I do this for Wikipedia, the artcile and the sake of furthering both knowledge and accurate information not for the "Barnstar" or the editors, many of which I see huge amounts of bias and COI. These things may not be troublesome for an article of a C rating but...I can't pass them to GA. 

 I refuse to backdown, as I see nothing I have done as being wrong or against the spirit or policy/guidelines of Wikipedia. However, my continued participation with the backlog is no longer fun. I also feel it could quickly become a distraction to the comminity and already see my username being bashed about by one and have been accused of "Quick Failing" for the sake of "listing". So I will step back from further backlog reviews this month. It looks to be accomplishing the needed work and that is the most important issue anyway. Thank You!  

 Mark