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

message: I think the listed requirements for barnstars are pretty low... at least compared to those of Biography assessment drive. There, 3000 reviews yields a Working Man's, (yes I know they're easier, but not that much)! Just my thoughts. -- Rmrfstar 23:41, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: They're a good deal easier there, yes.  But you must remember that in the last drive, you needed 5 for a GA medal of merit, so it's definitely an upgrade!  See the original at User:Nehrams2020/GA_reviews#GAC_backlog_elimination_May_23-June_13.2C_2007_.28Completed.29 Giggy UCP 23:55, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  In the biography drive though a quick editor can assess two or three articles a minute. Here a full review might take ten to twenty minutes, even longer for the long ones - Ive spent almost an hour on one before so I think 5 is a good number for a barnstar. This assessment drive is a good idea but theres a big gap between 10 and 25 - why not add a barnstar at 15 and 20? A lot of people might give up at ten, thinking 25 is a lot more to go? LordHarris 00:15, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I doubt they will...I think the incentive will make them work harder towards 25, not give up because it's too hard.  I'll be doing that, to the best of my ability. Giggy UCP 00:51, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

text: Well I will too! LordHarris 00:54, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, but 25 is nigh on impossible as there aren't enough articles to go round anymore. Anyway, it shouldn't be done for the petty distinctions. Mouse Nightshirt | talk 02:12, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Not to mention some of these articles are being promoted without adequate review. Nominations are going up at GA/R (by me) already. Am I correct in assuming that one will lose credit for the review if the article is delisted? LaraLove 06:33, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It would make sense, yes. Mouse Nightshirt | talk 13:19, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

text: I'd say this a problem of success - you offered incentives so people went for them. They also went about doing what they like to do - preferable edit articles they are interested in so they booked those in advance, in some cases more than usual! So definitely there has been some abuse of the GAreview. I second User:Tim Vickers suggestion on GAC talk page that if a GAreview tag has not been acted upon for a time (how much, to be decided by consensus), remove it and, very important, post the original tagger about it. In a few cases, personal circumstances may delay certain reviewers. Specifically, in my case, slow working habits, working offline, super-slow internet, long downtime of internet supplier and inability to use AWB or other bots on that regard, cause delays in my work to appear which give reason to wikipedians in the West with broadband that I have forgotten about the tagging. It may be that conditions in the West cause natural assumptions about how fast or in what manner people should respond, but a very small fraction of us are present too despite problems in communication that we face. In good faith! AshLin 20:14, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think this has only been a major issue with one reviewer. One that I've not seen on GAC before. I am one to tag an article of interest in advance. But I don't think I've ever had more than two articles tagged for review at the same time. And, like AshLin, it sometimes takes me a few hours to a day to get the review up for the same reasons she listed. That and I do really thorough reviews for most articles, which takes time and I typically don't post until they are complete. But I, too, agree with Tim Vickers that it is inappropriate to tag multiple aricles for review all at once. There should be a limit. And I also agree that there should be some sort of time limit. If an article is tagged as being reviewed but no review appears, say after 48 hours, that the review can be taken over by another reviewer. Past that, I also question the quality of reviews from reviewers pushing out a large number of reviews in one day. Lara♥Love 04:42, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I agree the points mentioned. However, we cannot change the GAR system simply because there's this drive happening at the moment. While I think limiting # of reviews definetely improve the quality of the reviews, this is not an official policy and hence people can simply ignore or completely disregard it then we would made a rule that nobody will follow on. I stay neutral on this suggestion. OhanaUnitedTalk page 08:14, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I may be one of the editors accused of leaving review tags on too long, but in my defense, I would like to mention that I have chosen to review some of the longest articles (often 50 kb of prose). Since I read the articles several times through and compose careful reviews, this can take me more than a day. I would argue that the editors of the article are better served by my careful reading and thorough reviews than by someone who tags the article and reads it in 15 minutes. Obviously, though, if an article goes unreviewed for four or more days, I would agree that there is a problem. Awadewit | talk 18:31, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Barnstars

message: Do you really mean that any reviews we've done since July 1 count for this drive as well? Awadewit | talk 10:34, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, at first I want to be simple and only count anything that starts on today, but Nehrams2020 asked me to revise it so that any reviews done before July 1 are eligible. OhanaUnitedTalk page 13:57, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Are we sure July 1st is ok as Ive just added another half dozen reviews that I did earlier in the month? LordHarris 21:20, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Yes, please do. OhanaUnitedTalk page 15:05, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: July 1 or July 11?

message: Lol...no credits for removing bad GAs.....Blnguyen  (bananabucket) 06:00, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What do you mean? Can you tell us more in details? OhanaUnitedTalk page 07:56, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: As in it only applies to articles which are up for promotion and not suspect GAs that need to be reviewed for demotion....Blnguyen  (bananabucket) 08:01, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Interesting. Why don't such reviews count? Editors still have to read the article and determine its "GA-worthiness". Awadewit | talk 08:05, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Cause the goal of this drive is to reduce the backlog of Wikipedia:Good article candidates, not Wikipedia:Good article review. Otherwise this drive focuses on too much. Besides, the backlog is not cleared. OhanaUnitedTalk page 14:46, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Two things is too many? Awadewit | talk 15:00, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Cause technically GAN and GAR are 2 different things. It's more appropriate to start another drive for GA review and delisting. OhanaUnitedTalk page 15:36, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

text: I took a look at the backlog page and esimate that there're around 20 articles left that has not been reviewed yet. This # doesn't include the most "on hold" articles. There're many ways to keep yourself occupied. One is to improve the articles listed "on hold". Another is to find your own favourite category and look for articles that you believe will make it to GA status. It's ok to be the same person to nominate and review the article as long as you're not a major contributor to the article. Just make sure that no matter how much you liked about the article, it needs to meet ALL GA criteria before it can be promoted to GA. OhanaUnitedTalk page 19:10, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Is this in response to me or someone else? My to-do list is longer than my intestines, so I'm good with keeping myself occupied. My concern is the backlog at GA/R which gets practically no attention from anyone. 12 might not sound like a lot, but when you consider many have been sitting there for weeks waiting on responses and that many have/will default out for "no consensus" because no one can be bothered to contribute, it's kind of sad. We're supposed to have at least six recommendations per nom to process. So if we can just get three or four people over there and interested in long-term participation, we'd be set. LaraLove 05:31, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[WP:GA/R]] 

message: The following is a list of articles where an editor runs into a GA review and raised concerns about the review (such as no fair-use rationale, reference problem despite the reviews claims that there's no issue). Feel free to add the concerned review to the bottom of the list. Don't forget to sign your name (but with a ~~~ instead of ~~~~)
 Quality reviews and comments by Lara♥Love
* Super Nintendo Entertainment System - OhanaUnitedTalk page  Reviewed the whole thing, THEN realized it was FA. 
* Union Pacific Railroad (FunPika) - OhanaUnitedTalk page 
* Atlantic City, New Jersey - OhanaUnitedTalk page 
* Cretaceous–Tertiary extinction event - AshLin 
* UEFA Euro 2004 - LaraLove 
* Shelton_Benjamin - LaraLove 
* Raëlian beliefs and practices (Thedagomar) - OhanaUnitedTalk page  I'm not sure about the appropriateness of the main image. Also the inclusion of book with ISBN in body.
* NLRB v. J. Weingarten, Inc. - OhanaUnitedTalk page  
* Seton Hall University (Derek.cashman) - Dr. Cash 
* Dr. No (film) - Awadewit | talk  I don't normally review movie articles, so I'm not entirely sure what all to look for that's specific for this topic of article, however, I do question the templates on the promo image and lack of source. Article failed. 
* Waitoreke - Dr. Cash - Article quick-passed by the primary editor and nominator after two GA Reviewers failed it. I delisted this article immediately after reading the delist nomination at WP:GA/R. I have posted a detailed time line on both the article talk page and the GA/R archive. I've also left a brief warning on the editor's talk page.  Lara♥Love 19:31, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  GA reviews with concerns 

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

message: What might be interesting is to look at the data and do a little light statistical analysis on it; since we have a COMPLETE set of GA noms and results for an entire month.  It would be neat to see what % of GA noms pass or fail in a given month... --Jayron32|talk|contribs 04:02, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Good idea, I'll be willing to do it when the drive is completed. --Nehrams2020 04:39, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Idea for what to do when drive is over 

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

message: Since no one has given them, I was bold and am now awarding them. Could someone please give me mine? It would be bad form to give it to myself, so I am asking. The format I am using is. ¿SFGiДnts! ¿Complain! ¿Analyze! ¿Review!  20:50, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I would be happy to do so. Cheers, Corvus coronoides talk 21:13, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Nevermind.  Epbr123 already did. :P Cheers, Corvus coronoides talk 21:16, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks to both of you! I would also appreciate it if you did the GA Awards of Merit. ¿SFGiДnts! ¿Complain! ¿Analyze! ¿Review!  21:18, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll do the GA Medal of Merits. Epbr123 21:23, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Done. Epbr123 21:32, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

text: Sorry Ohana. I suppose I should have posted something when the drive ended. It didn't occur to me that anyone but the coordinators would start handing out awards. And I must admit, I was a little confused when I got my award so quick. Are we stripping people of their awards if the quality reviews reveals they did not adequately review articles? Lara♥Love 13:38, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I for one wouldn't mind giving up my award if my work was unsatisfactory... but to that end can you strip of awards? Cheers, Corvus coronoides talk 19:53, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hehe, I'd just cross out my award's text and put "this is wrong. I'm not so great" on the page instead... "no! no! not my award! *cling*" David Fuchs (talk) 19:56, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sob, I did my best... The Rambling Man 20:01, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:    
I don't think you can strip someone's award/barnstar unless both parties are willing to remove it. Frankly, I dislike handing out awards prior to the end of reviews, it just looks like a jump-the-gun action. On the bright side, there will be special awards to be handed out after reviewing the reviews. (Yes, we purposely keep everyone but the coordinators from knowing this part to ensure quality, not quantity, reviews.) The best reviewers will receive Golden, Silver or Bronze Wiki Award. There will be 1 person receiving Golden, 2 people receiving Silver, and 3 receiving Bronze. We won't be handing these ones out until we checked all reviews. OhanaUnitedTalk page 21:20, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

text: Well, it would be great if it didn't matter... If everyone that received an award had earned it. However, we're not so fortunate. As barnstars can't just be deleted from user pages, the best we can do is alert the editor(s) that, unfortunately, their efforts did not earn them the award. If they choose to keep it, it's their decision. Personally, I wouldn't want a barnstar that I didn't earn. My awards mean something to me. Of course, I guess it will reveal something about their character should they keep it. With that said, I'm requesting the support of the coordinators to inform said editor(s) of their failure to earn the award. Lara♥Love 04:52, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, I agree with Lara.  Hopefully, though, we won't need to withdraw any awards. Giggy Talk 05:08, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What I am saying Giggy, is that there is a need. There are editors who received awards that shouldn't have. How to approach this is not certain as it's never a happened before. Lara♥Love 12:31, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I personally don't mind having any award stripped; as I've said before, I did the reviews to get them done, not for the award. I notice someone has gone ahead and given me one. I've also noted that one of my articles is starred. I therefore think that someone jumped the gun a bit. Mouse Nightshirt | talk 14:52, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry Lara, didn't read that well.  In that case, we do what was said above.  We tell them there award wasn't deserved, we ask if they'll give it up, and we leave it. Up to them. Giggy Talk 07:33, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Or we could ask them to do some reviews to make up for it? Epbr123 18:29, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

text:  Ok, I'm encountering some difficulties with delisting GA that are promoted as a result of bad reviews. OhanaUnitedTalk page 00:23, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm attempting to take the heat for it. It was my recommendation. Lara♥Love 06:37, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

text: That would be an affirmative. There are two messages on your talk page from me for which you appear to have ignored. LARA♥LOVE 06:16, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm sure you acted in good faith, but it appears to be an issue...  but question: when will all the quality reviews be done?  I ask because I appear to be one of few people with a relatively small amount of reviews without some sort of mark by my name. Cheers, Corvus coronoides talk 22:46, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Pretty soon. Sorry for the delay. I've got a 5-year-old starting school tomorrow, so this past week has been a lot of getting things ready and such, not a lot of Wikitime, and I needed a little break from article reviews. I did over a hundred last week. I had to take a few days. I'll get back on it this week. No definite answer, but I'd say probably will be done by Friday... maybe sooner with the 5-year-old hellion out of the house. :) LARA♥LOVE 03:32, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  And I was off to a 3 days and 2 nights camp. Right now I'm catching some sleep so it was a unproductive week. I'll start working on tomorrow, but please bear with us as some editors completed many reviews so we're going to finish where we left off before going to other editors. OhanaUnitedTalk page 04:12, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't really see the rush.  You good reviewer folk, take your time!  The Rambling Man 06:38, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I didn't mean to rush you, I was just curious.  Thanks for all your work! Cheers, Corvus coronoides talk 00:40, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

text: Prematurely handing out awards without even attempting to contact the coordinator or anyone else involved with running the project has caused an issue that has never before been experienced in Wikipedia, and has subsequently diluted the value of barnstar awards.
I seriously doubt that this is true, and even if it is, I was acting in good faith, as I have stated earlier. I realize that this page isn't supposed to be a preliminary Evidence section for an RfAr, and I'm not attempting to label LaraLove a troll, but I feel like I've been bitten. In my 2+ years on Wikipedia, this is one of the few negative experiences I've faced—not enough to make me leave, but I'll be making an effort to stay away from this project from now on. Just my thoughts. ¿SFGiДnts! ¿Complain! ¿Analyze! ¿Review!  01:13, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

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

message: Why is my name listed as "not done"? As far as I can see, only one of my reviews was overturned. Anyone? ¿SFGiДnts! ¿Complain! ¿Analyze! ¿Review!  00:15, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: We don't sit in front of our computer all day, we got real life problems that may take us off the course. But I'm glad to announce that all the reviews are checked and I will give out the barnstar now. OhanaUnitedTalk page 01:02, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Not done was for the matter of awards. Those tagged as not done did not adequately review their listed articles, therefore did not earn the awards they prematurely received. In the normal course of things, they would not have been awarded, of course. Speaking specifically of your reviews, SFGiants, although only one was overturned, two required further work by GA "staff", so to speak, to bring up to GA standards. Thankfully, all is over now. Regards, LaraLove 05:36, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

text: Question - why am I listed as "done?"  I thought I had two reviews marked with an asterisk, which should have moved me down to the 5 review range. Cheers, Corvus coronoides talk 15:30, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I listed you as done because I felt some of concerns are in gray areas and I have the same perspective as you. You got to realize that everyone's standard when reviewing GA is a bit different. We're just trying to catch those articles that really really shouldn't belong to GA but got promoted. OhanaUnitedTalk page 15:56, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I see, thank you. Cheers, Corvus coronoides talk 18:46, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: They had minor issues (lead sections and over-illustration for one) which were all easily and quickly corrected after I posted the messages. LaraLove 22:35, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Done/Not done