Wikipedia talk:Good articles/GAN Backlog Drives/August 2023

Quickly jotting down plans

Just quickly scratchpad-ing some ways I want to handle this:

• Reviews should have spotchecks, but I don't necessarily want to require a minimum number or % of sources spotchecked -- articles will have substantial independent variance in how many are 'representative', and individuals shouldn't be discouraged from e.g. picking up reviews where they feel able to spotcheck 'some' sources but not necessarily a guaranteed percentage
• Inclined to AGF on reviews from experienced reviewers that "don't explicitly mention spotchecks", especially if other reviews clearly do (newbies should be queried)
• Things like "this source gives a context you didn't give" or "I don't see this backed up in the source", etc are evidence of spotchecking, because you need to be looking at the source in the first place to know this (I noticed some reviews that clearly said this were marked as 'no spotchecks' in the last one)
• Are there any objections to e.g. making a watchlist notice to advertise the drive further?

Vaticidalprophet 05:33, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

• For the record, in my reviews I typically do 10% spotchecks, with a minimum of 7 and a maximum of 15. Other people will do similar percentages. Also, it would be best if the need for some evidence of source checking is in the guidelines.~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 09:21, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

Notifications

We can do a watchlist notice, I believe we did one for the last GAN drive.

I am going to send out a notification this Friday to everyone who has reviewed/nominated a GA in the last year, minus those who are already signed up. (t · c) buidhe 02:24, 25 July 2023 (UTC)

See /Mass message list (t · c) buidhe 07:00, 25 July 2023 (UTC)

The message I'm going to send:

Good article nominations | August 2023 Backlog Drive
August 2023 Backlog Drive: On 1 August, a one-month backlog drive for good article nominations will begin. Barnstars will be awarded. Interested in taking part? You can sign up here.
Other ways to participate: Join the conversations on our talkpage
You're receiving this message because you have reviewed or nominated a good article in the last year. (t · c) buidhe

(t · c) buidhe 07:04, 25 July 2023 (UTC)

Looks great :) Vaticidalprophet 07:25, 25 July 2023 (UTC)

Done (t · c) buidhe 05:15, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

Third coordinator

I would be happy to help with coordination, but could I learn the full duties of a coordinator first? From what I have gathered from my past participation, it consists of checking reviews and distributing barnstars. Is there anything else? — Golden ^{call me maybe?} 13:01, 25 July 2023 (UTC)

That's pretty much it. There is also notifications and setup but Vaticidalprophet and I have already dealt with those aspects. (t · c) buidhe 15:04, 25 July 2023 (UTC)

Buidhe, Golden, per query on my talk, happy to have you help with review-checking and barnstars :) Vaticidalprophet 03:34, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

Great! Happy to help. — Golden ^{call me maybe?} 07:17, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

@Vaticidalprophet: Should I record the quickfail of an old (180+) nomination in the "Old nominations reviewed:" section, or only in the"Articles reviewed:" section? — Golden ^{call me maybe?} 13:28, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

List of qualifying old articles

How is this list going to stay updated? I would be willing to help create/update it if needed. Cherrell410^{(t · c)} 15:09, 25 July 2023 (UTC)

I would also be able to assist in checking reviews for word size, etc. Cherrell410^{(t · c)} 15:14, 25 July 2023 (UTC)

List of abandoned reviews

In the last drive, in addition to the qualifying articles for bonus points, abandoned reviews (reviews that had been opened but the reviewer either withdrew or stopped editing) were considered eligible for regular review points as well as bonus points. It was a great help to have these abandoned reviews eligible for the drive; otherwise, they don't get reviewed and they badly need new reviewers. Any thoughts about including them in the upcoming drive? Many of these reviews are set for "2nd opinion" in the hopes of finding someone who will take over; if we list them in their own subsection after the List of qualifying articles subsection like last time, people can find them more easily. I think we counted the days from original nomination for the bonus points, rather than the date from which the 2nd opinion request was made. BlueMoonset (talk) 17:31, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

So something I noticed lately is that WP:GANI's instructions on abandoning reviews are 1. not what most people do and 2. significantly better than what most people do. (Specifically: drop the existing review, reset the status, and increment the GAn counter one, so the article goes right back where it should be in the list.) We should...probably go through and do this for all the abandoned 2Os, and publicize that this is How You Do It. Vaticidalprophet 17:35, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

Is it better? If the review made significant progress before the reviewer disappeared, should it start over from scratch, or should it continue from where it was with someone new? Note that the "abandoned" part of the instructions was added comparatively recently; this has historically been for where a reviewer voluntarily withdraws, though there are similarities in the two situations. BlueMoonset (talk) 20:59, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

The original review still exists, and the new reviewer can find it by incrementing the number down or checking the talk history. I think the "existing review front and centre" makes 2Os less approachable, not more -- every complaint is hypervisible and looks huge for its length, in the same way that long FACs are less approachable to new reviewers. Vaticidalprophet 04:45, 28 July 2023 (UTC)

Contradiction

These two sentences in the Running Total section contradict each other: Article reviews started before 31 August but completed after that date can be included.. and Reviews started before 1 August do not count. Should "started" be changed to "completed" in the second sentence? — Golden ^{call me maybe?} 23:15, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

Not a contradiction at all. If you start a review before the drive starts (prior to August 1), it is not eligible for the drive, even if you don't finish the review until sometime in August. Any review started on or after August 1 (and on or before August 31) is eligible for inclusion in the drive even if it is not completed by the end of the day on August 31. BlueMoonset (talk) 00:48, 28 July 2023 (UTC)

That said if someone opens a review but doesn't post any substantial comment before 1 August we have counted these in previous drives. And we've also only counted reviews open at the end of the drive if the reviewer has already mostly evaluated the article and made substantial comments. in that case they don't deserve to be dinged for delays on the part of the nominator, but we can still send out barnstars soon after the drive ends. (t · c) buidhe 04:59, 28 July 2023 (UTC)

It was 3AM and I read 31 August as 31 July. Sorry! — Golden ^{call me maybe?} 13:42, 28 July 2023 (UTC)

Word count

Are the totals cumulative across all articles reviewed or not? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 08:29, 28 July 2023 (UTC)

I was wondering the same thing. I assumed it was individually by article, but the "total words reviewed" on each user's submissions is making me second guess. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 21:47, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

Yeahhh that's a holdover from July 2021. I should probably drop it -- I was going to and then kept forgetting and they kept piling up. Vaticidalprophet 21:58, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

Progress

A quick explanation of how the Progress table entries are calculated: the reports page actually parses the entries on the nominations page to get its totals, while the totals at the top of the nominations page are typically off by a couple due to issues with the calculation templates used, even assuming they are collected at exactly 00:00 hours, which is often not the case. Because of this, we use the reports page numbers, which are collected daily. The date used is the new day just starting, and the time is midnight, the first moment of that day.

However, those reports numbers are collected at 01:00 UTC based on the nominations page at that moment in time, meaning that any updates to the page from 00:00 to 01:00 may include changes from the first hour of the new day. My practice has been to compare the nominations page history and manually back out any new nominations made after midnight, while adding back any passes or failures since midnight, and also adding to the number of unreviewed nominations any that were taken for review between 00:00 and 01:00 of the current day: this gets us the most accurate number possible of total nominations and total unreviewed nominations. I think it's worth doing this extra work and getting the most accurate numbers, which is why I do it this way.

Note that the graph template software is not working at the current time, and hasn't been for many months, so I have not included graphs this time around, much as I wish we could have them. If the graphs are repaired in the coming month, we can add them at that time. BlueMoonset (talk) 21:55, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

For an abundance of clarity

This is mentioned, but it's been missed, so: Grnrchst and Shushugah, please note Reviews started before 1 August do not count on the drive page. (Have already mentioned to Golden.) I'm inclined to let these slide as honest mistakes, but will defer if Buidhe wants to invalidate them. Vaticidalprophet 11:14, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

I just realised this and feel very silly, for some reason I thought today was 1 August. Feel free to invalidate it, I'm more concerned with reviews getting done than getting points for them anyway. -- Grnrchst (talk) 11:17, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

Is fine -- time is hard sometimes :) Like I said, I'm inclined to be flexible on mistakes but will take a second opinion. Vaticidalprophet 11:58, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

I'm not inclined to be overly strict either (t · c) buidhe 14:17, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

I did this because I saw it being done on the previous drive without any issues. I will keep your comment in mind for the future. — Golden ^{call me maybe?} 11:25, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

List of qualifying old articles 2

I think this list could be numbered, so we know how many articles there are. Eurohunter (talk) 13:53, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

Should I remove the article from the list after I start reviewing it? Eurohunter (talk) 17:28, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

Yes, please do :) Vaticidalprophet 17:31, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

@Vaticidalprophet: Thanks. I just noticed "After starting a review of one of these articles, please remove it from the list.". Eurohunter (talk) 17:44, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

Vaticidalprophet, the second bullet in the section reads, This list is automatically updated as additional nominations reach eligibility. While I manually added a few days to the bottom of the list early on 1 August to get all those old articles through the end of April, there should also be a few days from May that are 90+ days old. Is the automatic process running yet? If not, I could do manual additions, but I thought it was important to give the (implied) automated process a chance to do its work. Thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 05:13, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

Sorry -- I took the boilerplate from the previous drives, and from the confluence of the two understood it as meaning the automatic updates only added articles, not removed them. Do they also remove them? Vaticidalprophet 12:46, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

So far as I know, there never was an automatic process. I was one of a few people who would manually add those nominations that aged into the list, so apparently we were the "automatically" part of the equation. Last time, we didn't have different point levels based on age; I'm assuming the changes between sections of the list will be made manually as well. As for removal, many editors do follow the instructions and remove entries when they start their reviews; those of us updating the list will check it against the Reports page and remove any entries that weren't removed by their reviewers. I'll go about updating the list now; we would pre-load but comment out the next few days so daily updates were more quickly done close to midnight. BlueMoonset (talk) 18:12, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

I believe someone made a template that automatically bolds and italicizes. (t · c) buidhe 19:35, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

It's part of the {{Old good article table entry}} template that creates the individual table rows in the section: what the template does is format the row and adds the bolding for 180+ and bold italics for 270+ article links. BlueMoonset (talk) 23:07, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

Scoring#Timestamp

So 2 February 2023 was after 180 days or before? Maybe I'm tired today, but it could be more obvious. Eurohunter (talk) 17:51, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

180 days ago (from 1 August) is 3 February. Article from 2 February is therefore more than 180 days old (t · c) buidhe 19:36, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

Icon

Should I use GAH or GAN icon if review is in progress? Eurohunter (talk) 17:55, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

GAH icon is used when you finish the review and put the article on hold so that the issues raised during the GAN could be taken care of in order for the article to pass the GA criteria. Vacant0 (talk) 19:14, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

"List of qualifying old articles" bot

Could bot add links to /GA1 talk pages in notes so we can see if someone started review and forgot removing it from the list? Eurohunter (talk) 18:15, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

That would be good if anyone's willing to make it -- I've tweaked the section header to clarify this a little. Vaticidalprophet 19:11, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

We already have Template:GAN link, so in theory we could just use that instead of a plain link. The trick would be making sure it's the right iteration (in case it's /GA2 or /GA3). Thebiguglyalien (talk) 21:46, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

Word count

How do I measure word count on an article? AFH (talk) 20:52, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

Use the prosesize gadget, which you can turn on in your preferences. Vaticidalprophet 21:14, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

Should I log how long it was when I started, finished, or both? Or do I wait until a final decision is reached? ~ Argenti Aertheri^(Chat?) 00:17, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

This section should answer your question. 123Writer ^talk 00:42, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

Facepalm Thank you ~ Argenti Aertheri^(Chat?) 00:47, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

Just a note on my nomination Being You

Even though it is considered high-priority by the blessed algorithm, I'd recommend focusing on older articles (unless it is a quick fail then oops :P). This is a backlog drive after all. 123Writer ^talk 00:05, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

Article promoted

I reviewed and promoted the article Irredentism, what happens now? I also have made edits to the progress page. AFH (talk) 20:09, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

Mid-month reminder MMS

I've been happy to watch the drive's progress, especially in reviewing older articles. We've wiped out the whole 270+ section and there's only one article left that even might age in, while the 180+ has massively decreased in size.

Drives tend to be very frontloaded, so I'm thinking it might be a good idea to send an MMS on the 15th to participants with fewer than 3 points at that time to remind them about the drive and hopefully get a spike in activity. Having said that, I don't know for sure if this falls into solicited-MMS rules (despite being an MMS myself I've never used it much outside the newsletter). I'm leaning that it would be acceptable by them, but want some confirmation that it is, and also just to see if this would be a good idea in the first place. Vaticidalprophet 05:37, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

@Vaticidalprophet, so Wikipedia:Canvassing doesn't forbid it. Likewise, Wikipedia:Mass message senders states that "local events or edit-a-thons" are valid, particularly for interest parties. The fact that you'd be sending this out to people who explicitly signed up for the drive is well in line with precedent.

Also, I must say, this is probably one of the best drives I've seen in a while. Normally the progress peteres out, but so far it's consistently at ~10-20 articles fewer per day. This is very good for a GA drive. 🏵️Etrius ( Us) 23:02, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

Old nominations missing from the list?

The backlog drive's List of qualifying old articles is a bit out of sync with the Oldest nominations on the Report page. In particular, Liu Ji'en is 180+ days old, Festivali i Këngës 61 is almost there, and they are not listed as "qualifying old articles". These two do not pass the prosesize word count test, but Glen Waverley railway line does, and is not listed. —Kusma (talk) 20:29, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

Short articles are removed when I spot them, so those two have been repeatedly removed. I don't know why the railway line is missing -- it might've been confusion with the station, which I believe was also nominated at some point, and is below the threshold. Feel free to readd anything past the length line that's missing, though check the hidden comments in case it's missing for some other reason (e.g. Islam needed to resolve a 2O issue first). Vaticidalprophet 00:29, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

Ah, I see that they are in the list, but hidden. Could the fact that the list does not include short articles be advertised a bit better? Alternatively, the articles could be included with a comment of "short, may not qualify"? —Kusma (talk) 10:37, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

Is/was there a deadline to join the drive, or can I just jump in?

I was not initially planning on joining in, but I have unexpectedly encountered more time to work on Wikipedia and took a review; I've never participated before but I'm wondering: if I can, why not add a few? dannymusiceditor ^oops 17:37, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

The deadline to join is the end of the month! Have at it (t · c) buidhe 17:41, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

I was going to create a new discussion, but I'll jump in here. The deadline for joining is the end of the month, but what about the deadline for finishing? What's the plan for reviews that begin on August 31, or reviews where the nominator needs some extra time to work on it that pushes the review well into September? I assume this came up in previous drives, but the page itself doesn't specify. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 16:31, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

It's come up pretty often in drives. For the past few years, there's been no formal deadline except "do it quickly". One drive (I want to say 2014 or one of the 2011s) explicitly said "before the end of the month after". Generally review checking finishes as soon as possible and counts clearly-progressing reviews before they technically finish, though some drives have taken a long time to finish review checks for logistical reasons. Vaticidalprophet 16:37, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

Cool. "Do it quickly" seems like the optimal solution. I want to say that it should be mentioned on the drive's page, but there's also the risk that it might encourage gaming behavior. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 18:38, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

Being You: A New Science of Consciousness's quickfail

@Golden: Hello. I see that you deemed my quickfail of the Being You: A New Science of Consciousness article as invalid. Mind explaining the rationale of such decision? Many thanks. SpaceEconomist192 ✐ 17:21, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

There's a lot of subjectivity when it comes to whether a quickfail is valid and there's inevitably going to be some arbitrariness. (Not that I'm bitter about it or anything...) But with this particular review, the nominator is correct. Most of Wikipedia's advice about book summaries are in the "writing about fiction" page because that's where it comes up the most. But the underlying rule—that information about a work is cited to itself and doesn't need a citation footnote—applies to all works, fiction or nonfiction. The nominator is understandably upset that you failed the article just because of what a manual of style page is called. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 18:45, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for the explanation. If there is such consensus that the Manual of Style for writing about fiction applies to all types of books, then it should be rewritten in order to reflect this. I was only following Wikipedia's policies, I'm no wizard to guess that there is some secret rule about including non-fiction books in MOS:PLOTSOURCE... SpaceEconomist192 ✐ 19:30, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

Non-fiction synopses do not need inline citations, because the source (the book itself) is clearly understandable to any reader. An exception could possibly be if the book itself is unreliable e.g. pseudoscience, where false claims should not be unchallenged. (Here Seth's academic credentials makes them an expert and it's a reliable publisher too.)

Not all paragraphs need inline citations: in general this is WP:MINREF and for GA criteria specifically this is Wikipedia:Content that could reasonably be challenged. — Bilorv (talk) 21:34, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

You're absolutely right about this though. It's hardly the first time that this has been an issue at GA where it was unclear whether nonfiction summaries are treated the same as fiction summaries. At a certain point, there needs to be a proper discussion the ends with a clarification in the guidelines. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 23:25, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

@SpaceEconomist192: Hello. Your reason for quick-failing the article was way too many unsourced material, there are whole paragraphs without a single source, referring to sections of the article that describe the book's plot. Book articles do not need to have sourced synopses. 1TWO3Writer showed a good example of a 2023 FA Archaeology, Anthropology, and Interstellar Communication to demonstrate this. The fact that a 2023 FA passed with an unsourced synopsis without a problem is a good sign that it's not a violation. Although I understand your frustration with the lack of clarity in the guidelines, it still does not justify a fail. — Golden ^talk 07:19, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

I have renominated it for GA after some changes. 123Writer ^talk 07:10, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

Second opinion

I'm wondering if I can count Talk:Cartesian tree/GA1, where I've given a second opinion. In this case I assessed all the criteria as if the review was fresh, and both nominator and original reviewer are fine with counting it. — Bilorv (talk) 21:39, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

Yes, absolutely. I actually intended to drop a line to you about that when I happened upon the GAN like "yes, this is clearly a passing review", but it got finished before I could get that sorted. Vaticidalprophet 02:03, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

Thanks, now added to my submissions. — Bilorv (talk) 18:54, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

Drive will soon run out of qualifying old articles

We're currently down to 15 qualifying old articles (90+ days old), and at the current rate of decrease, could run out in the next couple of days, even with nominations aging in. This has happened before: the January 2022 backlog drive got down to the 45+ days old ones before it ended. It had announced: If nearly all nominations that are 90+ days old are placed on review, then nominations that are 75+ days old will become eligible for the extra half point. Subsequently, if nearly all nominations that are 75+ days old are placed on review, then nominations that are 60+ days old will become eligible, and so on.

Do we want to do the same thing for this drive: allow the oldest tranche, whether 90+ (as now), 75+ (if we run out of 90+), 60+ (if we run out of 75+), etc., be eligible for the extra .5 points? If so, I can line up all of the 75+ in the commented-out section in the list; at the moment, that section has 18 of the 19 current 75+, since they'll be aging into the 90+ over the next 11 days. Let me know. Thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 01:27, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

I'd be in favor but wait for one of the other coords to weigh in. (t · c) buidhe 01:36, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

I was just dwelling on that last night. It used to be pretty routine for drives to get to the 80+/70+/etc ranges. If there are only 19 75+ at the moment, I'm in favour. I was a little worried there might be some huge flood of articles, but that's manageable. Vaticidalprophet 05:00, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, that sounds reasonable. — Golden ^talk 08:13, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

I'd actually be keen to start running the 75+ now (i.e. at next rollover), if there's agreement on that -- the curve is starting to slow a little, and some of the remaining 90+s are tricky cases (e.g. articles on the borderline between being GA-candidates and FL-candidates list-inclusion-wise). Expanding bonuses early and picking up some more attention as a result sounds better to me than waiting for the whole list to possibly-but-not-guaranteed time out. (Perhaps the last few 90+s could get the 180+ bonus, in that case.) Vaticidalprophet 12:44, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

I definitely agree. The sooner we do this, the better. — Golden ^talk 14:23, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

We have thirteen 90+ as I write this. In the commented-out section, there are five that will age into 90+ eight hours from now (from 22-May). Another twelve are in 75+ now, and four more age into 75+ at the end of today (6-June). I'd hold off offering an increased 90+ bonus for a few days at least, and until we're down to five or fewer remaining of that vintage. BlueMoonset (talk) 18:14, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

Should we make 90+ articles 2 points and the 180+ articles 2.5 points? I don't think we're going to get a 270+ article any time soon. — Golden ^talk 07:46, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

We're out of 180+s for the rest of the drive, in fact -- and we started with 65 of them :) Vaticidalprophet 07:57, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

That's really good. Then perhaps we could add 60+ for 1.5 points, 75+ for 2 points, and 90+ for 2.5 points? I don't see the point in keeping 180+ and 270+ in the scoring table if we don't have any of them. — Golden ^talk 08:02, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

It's always possible that a few 180+ articles can come back into play; reviewers don't always follow through. We only recently had a 270+ there as well. In any event, I don't see the benefit of adding 60+ when the 75+ and 90+ combined are still two dozen strong, little changed from yesterday. BlueMoonset (talk) 19:22, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

I think it's good idea and I can also propose one month extension to 30 September. Eurohunter (talk) 13:07, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

Multi-month drives haven't traditionally worked very well -- see Wikipedia:WikiProject Good articles/GAN Backlog Drives/April–May 2020, where the backlog actually increased in May -- but I plan on running another at the first possible opportunity :) There'll also be a lot of allowance given in terms of finishing reviews that are still ongoing when the drive ends, i.e. you don't need to have everything done by the 31st if it's naturally taking longer. Vaticidalprophet 13:20, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

Don't change the length of the contest after it started. —Kusma (talk) 16:32, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

Absolutely agree. One month should be the max. Then give people a chance to rest up prior to the next drive. BlueMoonset (talk) 18:14, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

Somewhat relatedly, @Mike Christie, would the bot be able to calculate the average age of a nomination at the start of the drive vs the end of the drive? In addition to articles reviewed/reviews started, I think that could be an interesting measure of success. —Ganesha811 (talk) 00:32, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

I think so -- I believe all the relevant information is in the database, so it should be possible. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 00:48, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

That would be great, if you have time for it! If not, no worries of course. —Ganesha811 (talk) 01:47, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

Now that buidhe has initiated the 75+ noms, I have updated by moving up the post-midnight new 75-day-old noms, and have populated the commented-out section with all the nominations of at least 800 words that will age into the 75-day category before the end of August. I also took the liberty of modifying the Scoring section to note that 75s are eligible, and add 75 days to the table so it will be easy for people to tell when those commented-out ones become eligible. I hope this helps. BlueMoonset (talk) 00:56, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

Well, we're now down to ten 75+s -- and three of them went in about five minutes. Will keep an eye on it for if we might want to introduce the 60+s soon. (Incredible problems to have.) To be a bit more conservative, if we drop to 5 or so that seems like a good indication for the 60+s, but I haven't counted how many there are so we might want to introduce them sooner. Vaticidalprophet 00:35, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

Vaticidalprophet, all of the potential 60+ that are sub-75, which total 25, are now included in the commented-out section, plus one more that will become eligible tomorrow. I'll add those that will become eligible at the 60+ level through the end of August in a little while. There is one article that's 793 words; since the instructions say that those that are 800+ words at the time of passage are eligible, it might easily become eligible if any material is added during the course of the review. I'll let you decide whether to include it (it's the one from June 20, and I've noted the word comment in the Notes column). BlueMoonset (talk) 03:06, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

I believe it would be more effective to introduce the articles immediately, rather than waiting for the number of eligible articles to drop to 5. With nearly a hundred reviewers, if these articles have not been picked up for review, it is likely that the reviewers are not interested in reviewing them for some reason. As such, most of our reviewers are simply waiting for new articles to become eligible. There is no benefit in making them wait any longer. — Golden ^talk 11:31, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, given we're in the single digits now, I expect to add them on next rollover (or sooner if we have a sudden drop, but it's easier to count the "eligible on X date" at rollover). Vaticidalprophet 11:33, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

Well, there's the 60+s. I did not think at the outset we'd be adding 60+s.

At this time, there are only four 90+s left. It seems reasonable to me to bump those up to 2 points, if there's agreement. If other 180/270+s fall in by way of dropped reviews, those could be bumped to 3 points -- I'm not sure there are even many possible ones left, though. (Even as is, they disappear within minutes when they have so far.) Vaticidalprophet 00:28, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

I've added the ten noms that will become 60+ between now and August 31 in a commented-out section at the end of the list—they'll age in over the next five days. Should the 60+s get grabbed so quickly that you need to add the 45+ noms (which has happened at least once before), I don't expect to be able to take care of them; someone else will almost certainly have to add them. It looks like there will be another twenty or so of the 45+ beyond the ten that will be aging into 60+. BlueMoonset (talk) 05:06, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

I proposed something similar earlier, so that's a yes from me. — Golden ^talk 10:00, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

Eurovision 1996

Would it be acceptable to add Eurovision Song Contest 1996 (October 9, 2022) back to the list for >270 days? The reviewer who took it bailed after sitting on it for some time and it's just sort of lingering with a second opinion tag. Grk1011 (talk) 20:39, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

Seems fine. Vaticidalprophet 21:17, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

End of drive issues

Unfortunately, I've been fairly busy in real life and haven't had so much time for checking reviews. At the end of the drive I can help finish checking and send out all barnstars. (t · c) buidhe 05:15, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

No worries -- thanks for all you've done! We've been handling review checks fairly well, though there's one case where Golden reviewed an article of mine so neither of us can mark it off. Really appreciate the effort from everyone involved, you included. Vaticidalprophet 03:38, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

As for what to do next, my proposal is:

• Check reviews currently marked as incomplete
  • If they are reasonably thorough and mainly waiting for nominator response, give credit .
  • If the review was opened but not substantially meeting expectations for a thorough review, don't give credit.
• send out barnstars ASAP

I'd rather count the progress made during the drive instead of delaying a long time to send out the barnstars, since that has led to complaints in past drives. (t · c) buidhe 08:34, 2 September 2023 (UTC)

Agreed, and probably moreso -- I'm basically intending to count everything where a review is clearly progressing, and not just "a bluelinked page with nothing on it". I believe Golden is of similar thoughts, though hoping to start with participants who've finished all reviews so far. Vaticidalprophet 08:41, 2 September 2023 (UTC)

Yep. — Golden ^talk 08:52, 2 September 2023 (UTC)

As a quick note, we've been generally AGFing on reviews that don't explicitly mention source checks by reviewers who've done them elsewhere (I've looked at sources for all my reviews, but don't generally explicitly mention it unless 1. there were issues or 2. the review would otherwise be very short, and I know most people who have a "read through sources while reading the article and cross-reference" style rather than a "check random sources for specific statements" one do so too). Vaticidalprophet 06:13, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

Do multiple reviews of the same article count?

Hello! I just wanted to ask if we're allowed to submit multiple reviews of the same article, whether they go from fails to passes or not...

I was specifically thinking about Nestory Irankunda's page: I decided to quick-fail my original review, but I've noticed that the nominator has made some more edits and nominated the article again. Can I take a second look at it, or should I leave it to someone else? Oltrepier (talk) 08:17, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

Kylian Mbappé

Also, I just wanted to say that I've started a new review for Kylian Mbappé: despite the page's indication, I think this is actually the third GA review for the article... Can you confirm it? If yes, should I change the title in order to reflect the correct page? Oltrepier (talk) 09:02, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

Or is it the 2nd, and the first was incorrectly called GA2 at Talk:Kylian_Mbappé/GA2? -Kj cheetham (talk) 09:04, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

Looks like the 1st was deleted after it was withdrawn (is this usual?) according to https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&page=Talk%3AKylian_Mbapp%C3%A9%2FGA1, 2nd was Talk:Kylian_Mbappé/GA2, so this arguably is the 3rd. -Kj cheetham (talk) 09:06, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

@Kj cheetham I think the first review was deleted due to the WP:G6 criterion, but I'm not too familiar with it...

So, do I just rename my own page manually? Oltrepier (talk) 10:35, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

Personally I'd have just failed it rather than had it deleted, but nevermind. I think moving the page manually (and fixing any links) should be fine, but someone more experienced with GAN than me may have other thoughts. -Kj cheetham (talk) 11:06, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

I don't think it's necessary to do anything at this point. If you move pages to where you think they should be the bot will almost certainly get confused, though I'm sure I could clean it up. But what would be the benefit of moving it? Is there any reason it can't have the reviews out of numerical order? The dates are preserved in the contents and history so there's no doubt about it. You could add some text at the top of the review explaining the situation. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:07, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

Mike Christie, good point. -Kj cheetham (talk) 12:30, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

@Mike Christie I actually did it, but thank you for making this point, anyway!

Thanks to @Kj cheetham, too! : ) Oltrepier (talk) 13:27, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

Cookies for our GAN Drive coordinators!

Cookies for the coordinators!

Good morning, afternoon, evening, or night! Stopping by on our last day to thank our coordinators (Vaticidalprophet, Buidhe, & Golden) for keeping up with all of our activities during this drive! Have a snack on us whether you are finishing reviews yourself, calculating scores, passing out awards, or simply relaxing, we appreciate you and your volunteer work! Make sure to take time for a break after the deadline for your attentiveness and time! -- With Wikilove, from the participants!

---

• As a first time (active) participant for a drive and formal reviewer for articles at the GA-level, this was a lot of fun and an educational experience! My brain is chugging along at 5mph towards the finish line (haha), but I feel more confident to review articles while knowing what feedback is useful for nominators. I think the drive helped push me to learn more about topics I do not regularly engage with and gain a better appreciation for those who have reviewed the articles I have contributed to in the past. Also, congrats to everyone for keeping the backlog reduction in the green (knocking on wood). Not sure if that is a first for drives, but I personally kept checking everyday at the deadline to see if we ever reached red because I was nervous about losing the streak! Thanks for putting this together! :D Adog (Talk・Cont) 01:11, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

I co-sign each one of @Adog's words, from the top to the bottom!

Even though I've had limited time to get involved properly, it was definitely an useful experience, and I'd like to thank you for the excellent organization and the effort you put in! Oltrepier (talk) 08:01, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for your kind words and appreciation! I'm delighted by the success of this drive, which, to my knowledge, has had the most participants yet out of any other previous GA Backlog drive. It has been a pleasure working with all of you and helping to coordinate the drive. — Golden ^talk 08:48, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

About reviews completed over the deadline

I'm pretty sure you already specified this somewhere on the main page, but I still wanted to make this question: do reviews that are completed (not submitted) over the deadline still count for points?

At the moment, I've got two reviews on hold, and I don't know if I'll be able to get them over the line within tonight, yet... Oltrepier (talk) 08:04, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

I think there is a relevant discussion above at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Good articles/GAN Backlog Drives/August 2023#Is/was there a deadline to join the drive, or can I just jump in?. Though, what the coordinators want during this drive might defer. Adog (Talk・Cont) 13:07, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

@Adog Oh man, that's actually the bit I was looking for! Thank you for flagging it. : D

Anyway, I've managed to get one of my reviews over the line, but I'm not sure about the other one... Oltrepier (talk) 14:27, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

Yes! Reviews that finish after the end of the month count! You could start a review today and finish it in weeks and it'd count if the review was clearly progressing (i.e. not just picking up a page and making 0 comments ever). I've needed to say this a whole bunch of places to a whole bunch of people, so it's something I have on the list to make more explicit next drive. Vaticidalprophet 21:04, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

@Vaticidalprophet Thank you for clarifying! I still hope I'll hear from the nominator of that article soon, though... Oltrepier (talk) 20:47, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

Actually, they replied now, so forget my last statement! : D Oltrepier (talk) 20:54, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

Some statistics

Here are some statistics for the drive.

• 557 articles which were nominated prior to the start of the drive had a review started during the drive. 539 of those have either passed or failed.
• 185 articles nominated during the drive had a review started during the drive. 147 of those have either passed or failed.
• There are 348 articles at GAN now, of which 190 were nominated before the drive began. Of those 190, 82 have not had a review started; 4 have a second opinion requested; 52 are on hold; and 52 are under review. Of the 158 which were nominated during the drive, 121 have not had a review started; 9 are on hold; 28 are under review.
• At the close of the drive (UTC) there were 197 unreviewed articles. Those articles had an average age of 31.8 days at the close of the drive.
• At the start of the drive (UTC) there were 621 unreviewed articles. Those articles had an average age of 91.7 days at the start of the drive.

-- Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:11, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

Now, isn't that something? From 621 to 197. Well done, everyone! — Golden ^talk 12:55, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

Thanks so much to everybody for all they've done. I'll be writing up a debrief on WT:GAN in the next couple days. Vaticidalprophet 20:17, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for running the statistics! Cutting the average age by ⅔ is a huge achievement for the drive. Some very tricky old reviews on huge subjects were tackled. There's a big difference for a newer nominator between waiting a month and waiting three. —Ganesha811 (talk) 13:49, 2 September 2023 (UTC)

I think I've sent everything out

Errors are inevitable, but I will fix if anyone complains. (t · c) buidhe 07:19, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

Thanks. I'm going over them right now. — Golden ^talk 07:22, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

List of everyone who reviewed at least one article during the drive:

TWO3Writer Y

adamstom97 Y

Adog Y

Aintabli N - This user is missing The Working Wikipedian's Barnstar. If the two open reviews are counted, which I would count, then they should receive The Reviewer Barnstar instead.

AirshipJungleman29 Not sure - Why not count the review of the Israeli occupation article? The review was clearly progressing.

Amitchell125 Y

ArcticSeeress Y

Argenti Aertheri Y

AryKun Y

AstonishingTunesAdmirer Y

Augustios Paleo Y

AviationFreak Y

Bart Terpstra Y

BennyOnTheLoose Y

Bilorv Y

Bluecrystal004 Y

Bneu2013 Y

BritneyErotica Y

Bruxton Y

Brachy0008 Y

BuySomeApples Y

Ca Y

Cherrell410 Y

Chilicave Y

David Fuchs Y

DimensionalFusion Y

DME Y

Dylnuge Y

Etriusus Y

Eurohunter Not sure - Vat and I counted reviews that had no spotchecks if at least one of their previous reviews did have one. So, I personally don't think it's fair to not count all the open reviews that Eurohunter had.

Freedom4U Y

Fritzmann Y

Frzzl Y

Ganesha811 Y

Garnet-Septagon Y

Golden Y I was planning on reviewing my one open review today, which would have meant that I received the Premium Reviewer Barnstar. But, oh well.

Gonzo_fan2007 Y

Grk1011 Y

Grnrchst Y

Grondemar Y

HickoryOughtShirt?4 Y

Jalapeño Y

Johannes Schade Y

Jonathanischoice Y

K. Peake Not sure - The same point I made for Eurohunter applies here.

Keresluna Y

Kj_cheetham Y

Kusma Y

Llewee Y

Lightburst Y

LunaEatsTuna Y I would have counted the review of Nudity, but it doesn't affect the outcome anyway.

Marshelec Y

M4VER1CK32 Y

MaxnaCarta Y

MPGuy2824 Y

MrLinkinPark333 Y

MSG17 Y

Mujinga Y

OlifanofmrTennant Y

Oltrepier Y

Pbritti Y

Peacemaker67 Y

Pickersgill-Cunliffe Y

PizzaKing13 Y I would have counted the Ecclesiastical prison review, but it doesn't affect the outcome anyway.

PMC Y

Reidgreg

Riley1012 Y

Sammi Brie Y

Sammielh Y

Sarangem Y

Shushugah Y

simongraham Y

Skyshifter Y

Spinixster Y

Stevie fae Scotland Y I would have counted the Chelsea F.C. 2–4 Bradford City A.F.C. review, but it doesn't affect the outcome anyway.

Sturmvogel_66 Y

Thebiguglyalien Y

The Blue Rider Y

The Night Watch Y

Vacant0 Y

Vanamonde Y

Vaticidalprophet Y

voorts Y

ZKang123 Y — Golden ^talk 10:46, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

re "I was planning on reviewing my one open review today, which would have meant that I received the Premium Reviewer Barnstar" - if that's the case i think you should get it! Mujinga (talk) 16:05, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

Aforementioned complaints about inevitable errors:

• Adog – Talk:You Sang to Me/GA1
• Thebiguglyalien – Talk:KNP Complex Fire/GA1
• Vaticidalprophet – Talk:William J. McGarry/GA1 and Talk:Film Center Building/GA1

The above finished reviews that don't have any confirmation on the drive page. I know it's such a minor thing, but I noticed because mine puts me above the threshold for the next medal. A few other stray thoughts:

• It seems like reviews lacking spotchecks were generally credited until Buidhe's final sweep.
• I think it's reasonable to say that the initial review should have been completed by the end of the month, but that's something that should probably be noted in the rules.
• A few editors took on multiple reviews at once and didn't always get them evaluated in a timely manner, so future drives might want to note that.
• See you all in 6–12 months?

Thebiguglyalien (talk) 16:46, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

Solid points. I was under the impression that we would distribute barnstars to those who completed all their reviews first and wait for others with open reviews (or give them a deadline) before distributing to them later. So, I was a bit surprised. — Golden ^talk 17:10, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

In the past it has taken multiple months to get out barnstars, which has led to complaints. I tend to think it's better to wrap up promptly, and only count work done during the drive (reviews that would have counted if closed, or close to it-the standard, I believe, that we've used in the past) but it's possible I over corrected. (t · c) buidhe 19:41, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

• I fixed the missing notification to Aintabli. (t · c) buidhe 04:07, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

  Thanks. Do you have any plans for the ones I marked as "Not sure"? — Golden ^talk 09:03, 7 September 2023 (UTC)