Jump to content

User talk:Two Hearted River/Sandbox3

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

In the past few weeks I've seen a number of usernames come up over and over again in GA nominations and reviews in the music category. Upon further investigation of twelve editors, I found some reciprocity in their GA review practices. I have compiled data of their GA nominations and reviews, and have presented them in the corresponding sandbox page. Obviously, I do not believe all twelve are acting in concert, nor do I believe any of the editors is intentionally circumventing GAN policies.

Here are some of the practices that concern me and why:

  • Reciprocating GA reviews — I don’t believe this practice is necessarily wrong, but it looks bad. I did not take the time to scrutinize the actual reviews that the twelve editors have been giving, but one may see the reason behind the reciprocity as racking up 's in a way that avoids receiving more rigorous reviews from other editors. Of the 66 possible editor combinations here, there are 18 instances of reciprocity. For example, Adabow has reviewed eight of CallMeNathan's GANs and CallMeNathan has returned the favor seven times.
  • Reviewing multiple GANs by a single nominator — Everyone has a different interpretation of the GA criteria. If I’m writing an article with a view towards achieving GA status, I do my best to meet the criteria, as I understand them, before nominating. The reviewer then finds issues that I overlooked, because his understanding is different. If my articles are consistently reviewed by the same reviewer, I learn only to consider his interpretation when writing. But when each of my articles is reviewed by a different reviewer, I start to take all of the reviewers' interpretations into account when writing subsequent articles, and those articles (and readers’ experiences) are better off for it. No fewer than seventeen of CallMeNathan's GANs have been reviewed by Calvin• 999, yet when I reviewed one of CallMeNathan's GANs it took more than a month of review/editing to improve the article to GA status.
  • High percentages of the twelve editors' reviews are of articles nominated by the other eleven — This makes it appear as if the editors’ are keeping an eye out for each other. All of Candyo32's 13 reviews, and 25 out of 27 reviews by Calvin• 999 have been conducted on articles nominated by the other eleven (just five of the eleven, actually, for each of them).
  • Reviewing new nominations while dozens of older nominations wait — This is a compounding factor that makes the previous bullet points look worse. All but two of the twelve have begun a review of a GAN within six hours of its nomination, and the median time between GA nomination by one of the twelve and the start of its review by another member of the twelve is about a week – this despite the large number of GANs that have been waiting for over a month for their review. Calvin• 999 has jumped on nine GANs by CallMeNathan within 23 hours of their nomination, one just twenty minutes later. This is not helping CallMeNathan write better articles, nor is it helping Calvin• 999 become a better reviewer. Adabow has turned down a review request from someone he didn’t know (and told him to have patience), but elsewhere has begun reviewing GANs within hours of their nomination.

(Having gone through all the data, it appears that CrowzRSA and Legolas are mostly innocent of these charges. Only CrowzRSA's two most recent reviews look questionable – not the reviews themselves, but how he selected the articles – and Legolas recently has been reviewing articles from outside the twelve editors named here. Legolas has also just begun to recognize the problem...)

Suggestions to the twelve:

  • Stop reciprocating.
  • If you've already reviewed a couple GANs by one of the twelve, stop reviewing their nominations. There are plenty of other nominations from which to choose. Articles by the twelve will be better off for having fresh eyes scrutinizing them.
  • When you want to review a GAN, pick one of the ten oldest nominations…especially if it’s outside your wheelhouse of Top 40 music.

Two Hearted River (paddle / fish) 03:48, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

[edit]
Yes, 3 and 6 days. But there are plenty of nominations that have been waiting for well over 30 days. Two Hearted River (paddle / fish) 04:50, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, at the time, they were somewhere time in the middle of the list. I never pick the last nominations, but even if I had, there were only two. Some of the users I see always pick up the new articles. -- ipodnano05 * leave@message 04:57, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment by Nathan - THR, I don't review articles much anymore, due to the discomfort I have with failing a person's work, whether I'm friendly with them or not. At this point, I've done maybe 3 in 45 days. Secondly, any comments I made that you marked on the above mentioned page, were done over a year ago, when things here were very different. If you want change, lets not forget about everyone else. If anything can be done, then it has to guide-lines that apply to everyone, even you Legolas.--CallMeNathan • Talk2Me 04:33, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Of the five reviews you have conducted in the last 45 days, all of the articles were nominated by other members of the twelve, you have previously reviewed articles by each of the nominators, and three of the five nominators have reviewed GANs nominated by you. That doesn't look good. Two Hearted River (paddle / fish) 04:46, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I wasn't aware that I wasn't allowed to review articles by my peers...Have you seen them? First off I had nothing to do with their promotion. Look at Unique's "On the Floor", went on forever until he got it right. Now, I'm doing Rihanna's Loud. You tell me that doesn't look thorough. They haven't stopped working for a week on it yet. Next, I had failed Legolas' The Monster Ball Tour, and had a large list for him to complete. So please, don't come here telling me I do crappy reviews. If there is any issue regarding me, its that others provide crappy reviews for my articles, which I can't help and don't recommend. And just a side note, "Make it Happen" took a month for several reasons. Firstly, it was one of my weaker nominations, two, you decided to post them in rounds, each with an interval of like 4 days, and three, I took my time to address them. If we both did it with haste, it could have easily been done in one week. One last thing, please don't dig into old nominations as proof, because those are over one year old, and have nothing to do with my current work, or of any of my peers. Another thing. I'm reviewing Ipod's article. Is that an issue? Last time I checked it wasn't...--CallMeNathan • Talk2Me 05:04, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
From this reply, it looks like you didn't even read my initial post here. The reasons I'm questioning your reviewing practices have nothing to do with the quality of the reviews. But I do find your defensiveness suspicious. What is the problem with instead reviewing old nominations by editors you haven't previously dealt with? Two Hearted River (paddle / fish) 11:13, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Excuse me? Listen THR, I have worked well with you in the past, so don't make us fight over bull-shit. Suspicious of what? Terrorist activity? Yes, hear it now, I like to review articles I am familiar with. That's it. Would I protest to banning that; No. I don't have a problem with only reviewing from articles or editors I do not know. But don't be posting nonsense accusations.--CallMeNathan • Talk2Me 11:18, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment by iPodNano I see the problems, but they are a mere result of editors reviewing articles whose subject they are familiar to. For example, I wouldn't review a television or film article because I have no idea how those articles work, and might give a horrible review. -- ipodnano05 * leave@message 04:42, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
There are plenty of music GANs to choose from. Right now, none of the 17 oldest unreviewed GANs were nominated by one of the twelve. Two Hearted River (paddle / fish) 04:50, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
True, I chose to review one of those. And I might choose another soon. -- ipodnano05 * leave@message 04:55, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Great. I encourage you to review old nominations by editors you haven't previously dealt with. Two Hearted River (paddle / fish) 11:13, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments by Rp0211 – Hey, THR. I have read through this and agree with you. I must tell you, though, my reviews for editors have been to decrease the article backlog that the good article nominations page gets and were in good faith. I have reviewed mostly older nominations, but have also reviewed fairly new ones as well. However, I do believe that asking for help and having people ask me for help is doing nothing wrong and promotes Wikipedians to work together. Rp0211 (talk2me) 05:50, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, you've reviewed a number of old nominations. Your first review of a GAN by CallMeNathan occurred 77 days after it was nominated. But then you reviewed three more of his GANs, the last one only two hours after it was nominated. Do you understand why that doesn't look good, and how it's just as easy to choose old nominations by editors you haven't previously dealt with? (I can see this is going to be my mantra...) Two Hearted River (paddle / fish) 11:13, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I understand how that is bad now. In the future, I will review nominations that are in the top bracket so I can work with other nominators I do not know. Rp0211 (talk2me) 18:08, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments by Calvin999 – Although I don't feel as if I should have to explain myself, I have been doing a lot of reviews because I have a 5 and a half month summer holiday from University, there I probably have and spend more time than any of you on here. The other day I spent 12 hours on here, reviewing and editing. (I was editing Rude Boy for 6 hours). All I was doing in my large amount of spare time was helping with the backlog, reviewing some GANs that were over 2 months old, and I was also reviewing whilst nominating so that I was kinda counteracting my nominations by helping bring down the backlog, trying to not let the number increase. And is there any rule that says I must also do GANs that are old and not just new ones? I only did GANs reviews for singers who I like, because I have more of an interest in them. I don't see the point of me reviewing a Madonna article for instance because I don't like her and I think she is a terrible singer, therefore I won't be interested in reading it and I would probably unknowingly give it a less thorough review. BUT if you don't want me to review, and want the backlog to increase, which it will do, then that's fine. Calvin • NaNaNaC'mon! 12:08, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The fact that you like Mariah Carey and commit to reviewing GANs of her work within hours of their nomination (though you often say the actual review will come days later), means that few others get a chance to review those articles, and the articles and their editors suffer for repeatedly receiving reviews from just one person. I have a low opinion of Mariah Carey, and didn't listen to "Make It Happen" at all before or while reviewing that article, but we ended up with an article that is almost FA-ready in my estimation. In fact, I would argue the article is better off for having been reviewed by someone who isn't a fan. Two Hearted River (paddle / fish) 12:34, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree, I think that if you are a fan of the singer, you are more likely to become interested and engaged with the article whilst reading it and have more knowledge about the subject. And like I said, I may give the review a later review date, but I have a lot of spare time at the moment, so boo-hoo if I review it earlier than I estimated. Surely that is a good thing? That the article becomes that of a better quality sooner rather than later. And yes I noticed that you have spent an extortionate amount of time reviewing Make it Happen. I actually think spending the amount of time reviewing an article like you did is quite unfair, because not everyone gets that, actually, I've never seen anyone else get that. GANs are mean't to be shorter and highlighting errors, not for re-writing and not for dragging it out for as long as possible and making FA worthy before it's even had a chance to be GA for a while. That is what a Peer Review is for, and is the process that everyone else goes through. Actually, when someone was reviewing a GAN of mine, they took nearly 3 weeks, and I got very annoyed with having to wait that long to get feedback every few days, when I made the changes within 10 minutes every time. Calvin • NaNaNaC'mon! 13:18, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Your familiarity with the subject may cause you to overlook ideas/phrasings that are apparent to you but ambiguous to others. Your claiming an article for review days before you're actually able to conduct the review precludes, or at least dissuades, others from reviewing that article...and they might be ready to conduct the review then and there. And regarding the rigorousness of the review, if I spot an error, I'm going to point it out. And why not? If I have a nominator's attention, I think I should encourage him to improve the article wherever its deficient. Ultimately though, I apply just the GA criteria when making the final decision. Why would you get annoyed with a long review? What's so important about having another right this minute? Two Hearted River (paddle / fish) 13:35, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No, it doesn't. You don't know me, so you don't know just how much knowledge I have about Mariah. In fact, I spot things which have been overlooked in her articles and point out things which are missing or wrong. And it's kinda irrelevant now saying that I am stopping people from being able to review, because you and I have both noted, I actually did them several days before I said I would. Most people leave reviews maybe a day or two before reviewing, several people have done that to me. Calvin • NaNaNaC'mon! 13:56, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Broad coverage is but one GA criterion. If you have such extensive knowledge, contribute to the pages and let disinterested editors review. Regardless of how soon you're able to start the actual review, you have claimed almost half of your reviews within 24 hours of the article's nomination. It looks bad. Two Hearted River (paddle / fish) 14:02, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I fail to see how it looks bad. I have significantly helped to reduce the backlog, and I get no thanks for that. I'll tell you what looks bad, is that I am getting penalised for being very actively involved on Wikipedia, dedicating a lot of my time to it, and helping other people achieve GA status on their GANs. Maybe you should suggest making these now apparent rules being more widely known, before getting someone into conflict without them even knowing about it, because no one has ever mentioned, nor have I ever seen, that you aren't allowed to review a lot of articles or review more than 10 from one Wikiproject until today. Calvin • NaNaNaC'mon! 14:11, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I suppose working to codify my suggestions is an option if some editors do not see that their review practices could be hurting perception of the GA standard... Two Hearted River (paddle / fish) 14:18, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment to all - Look THR, at the end of the day I agree. First off, you might not like her, as I would kill myself listening to a BLack Crowes album. Whatever. Anyway, I'll honestly put my best effort to review articles from the top of the list, and most importantly, ones that are from editors I am not familiar with. Okay?--CallMeNathan • Talk2Me 20:09, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Wonderful! You'll become a better reviewer for it, and you'll make others better editors through your reviews. You might also consider asking certain editors not to review your GANs if they've already reviewed some of your previous nominations. Two Hearted River (paddle / fish) 20:20, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Sure. Well, I can assure you poor Calvin won't be reviewing any more of mine after this, or any at all. Also remember one last thing. Adabow, Candy, Unique are all pretty much retired. So there really aren't many editors that fall under this restriction. Anyway, happy editing!--CallMeNathan • Talk2Me 21:23, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • The only user I recognize on the list is User:Legolas2186. I view him as a respected editor and reviewer who, along with the long-time GA-work, has numerous FAs and FA-reviews to his credit. I looked over the last 5 GA articles+reviews listed at User:Two Hearted River/Sandbox3#Legolas2186 and I would endorse the conclusions if they were listed at WP:GAR. I'm not very familiar with the others, but it appears they have significant GA experience and it would be very beneficial to the process if they shared that experience with more nominators, especially first-time nominators. maclean (talk) 21:37, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment by Mattchewbaca – I would just like to commend you THR, for putting forth the time and effort to put this problem into perspective. Hopefully, with the great investigative work you have demonstrated here, this will send a message to these editors that their GA reviewing buddy circle is not to be taken seriously. Beyond the reciprocity of this group and their articles is the depreciated level of their reviewing knowledge. Some in this group, with or without realizing it, are responsible for the current diminished state of GA class articles. While I can't speak for each and every one of these editors, I have had personal experience with a few of them, two of which are Adabow, and Rp0211.
The article Halfway Gone, which was nominated by Rp0211 and reviewed by Adabow, in September 2010, was selected by myself to undergo WP:GAR. As you can see, the article clearly does not meet the WP:GA requirements. Many of the refs are duplicates of one another, including: Refs 19 and 35, 20 and 37, 21 and 33, 22 and 34, 23 and 40. There is the use of both Nielsen Business Media and Prometheus Global Media for the Billboard references. There are refs that do not support actual claims. Two-thirds of the Live performances section is factually inaccurate, seeing as though they are not live performances but instead taped and aired later that evening. My attempt at a successful de-listing of the article was met with resistance and consequently it still remains as a GA.
Rp0211 reviewed Howling Bells (album), an article which I nominated for GA. He quick-failed the article within 57 minutes of creating the review page. His review baffled me, it seemed as though he did not have the knowledge required to actually be reviewing an article because the majority of his claims, as far as faults in the article went, were unfounded, they simply were not true. The other points in the article he claimed as weaknesses easily could have fixed within ten minutes.
Fighting Temptation is another article that Rp0211 quick-failed the day after my GA nominated article was failed by him. He proceeded to pass this article after he and the nominator came to an agreement to where he would allot a certain amount of time to the nominator to make corrections based on his GA review. David Lucas (composer) is another GA nominated article that he has had quick-failed just this week. After the nominator of that article reached out to him on his talk page stating that she could have fixed all of the issues addressed in a timely manner, he agreed to give put the nomination on hold and allow her time to make the changes. Within 48 minutes of leaving the message on his talk page, the nominator had made all the changes to the article brought up by him, and now he has passed the article that he initially quick-failed. In the past, Rp0211 was warned here to stop reviewing articles and had a thread started about him and his bad GA reviewing.
In closing, I would like to say that getting any of the articles that I work on to GA status no longer is a concern to me. These editors have flooded the market with their paltry articles and now GA is not a true representation. I find it amusing that these editors still nominate their articles for GA as if it's a noteworthy achievement... it makes me ponder. They seem to not realize that their GA articles are in the same league with a C-class article masquerading as a GA. Even though my comments were a bit off topic, I would again like to express gratitude to you THR, for casting light upon this matter which needs to be properly addressed at an administrative level. This act of back scratching amongst these editors as well as their abominable reviewing standards has to cease if GA status is to exemplify what it truly stands for. Mattchewbaca (meow) 21:42, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Those are some strong accusations. I believe them to be quite opposite. A lot of the work at GA now is much better than before. While there are some articles that are too short, that's because the subject itself is not that newsworthy. There shouldn't be articles for every single song that gets to GA. Some examples, no offense, are My Only Wish (This Year) and some of Beyonce's. There are just too many song articles. The former only has three sections, while the latter is just flooded with unnecessary articles (even if the articles are lengthy and well-worked). BTW, try another GAR for Halfway Gone. I'll be the first to support you.-- ipodnano05 * leave@message 23:55, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yours is a case of sour grapes and plain acting like a loser, Matthewbaca. You are returning from a block on a personal attack case against this user (RP0211) and just justifying your frustrations here. Oh and please don't accuse other wikipedians of making paltry articles, you wish you were half as good as these so called 12 accused editors. I hardly find your comments objectionable, lame-ass at its best. — Legolas (talk2me) 01:41, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You're right, I did act like a loser, I felt bad about it, and I apologized for it. I just came to voice my opinion because I too have noticed that a certain group of editors have been networking their GA nominated articles amongst themselves. I am also aware of some of the sub-par reviewing practices being conducted by a few of the accused, so I have provided examples as proof of what I'm talking about. For a reviewer to not give the nominator a chance to address concerns brought forth in their review is both wrong and not fair. To review a GAN article it would benefit an editor to have a good understanding of what they're reviewing for before they start. I've seen some very questionable articles being accepted as GA by a few of the editors included in this group, that's all. Mattchewbaca (meow) 02:29, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I personally have not nominated something for GA for a while now. I have been quiet inactive. However if you look at all the articles I have had reviewed in question they have all been extremely fair reviews. At times I have even asked for second opinions. I don't believe that any of my personal conduct is liable for questioning here. However I do accept that not a wide enough range of editors are taking part in the GA process. I would also argue that the wikicup is largely to blame, as it is actively encouraging many of the users listed to create GA articles. Project Beyoncé has also caused a significant issue leading a raft of articles being passed for GA, many of which had to be reassed or tweaked because they insufficiently met the GA criteria. I think the wider issue is there is NO SET standard and different expectations for what makes a suitable GA article. — Lil_℧niquℇ №1 [talk] 18:07, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment by Novice7 – Hello THR! I have to agree with Iponano here. Your suggestions are really good and I'll surely take them into account. Novice7 (talk) 12:59, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Two_Hearted_River/Sandbox3&oldid=1139341146"