Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by MiszaBot II (talk | contribs) at 07:10, 10 November 2011 (Archiving 2 thread(s) (older than 7d) to Misplaced Pages talk:Good article nominations/Archive 15.). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

view · edit Frequently asked questions Main Criteria Instructions Nominations FAQ January backlog drive Mentorship Review circles Discussion Reassessment Report Shortcut WP:GAFAQ This is the list of Frequently asked questions about nominating and reviewing Good articles. If you cannot find the answer to your question here, you might want to ask for assistance at the GA nominations discussion page. Nomination process The backlog is huge! Is there something we can do to restrict nominations? There have been complaints about the perceived backlog in reviewing since the Good article status was created in 2006. Generally speaking, we don't want to restrict nominations along their path to GA. In the beginning, as many as 100 nominations were waiting for a reviewer to volunteer. By 2011, each day typically listed 330 nominated articles, of which 260 were waiting. By 2016, 580 were listed, 460 waiting; by 2021, 470 were listed, 300 were waiting. For comparison, today there are currently 701 nominations listed and 617 waiting for a reviewer. While it may seem overwhelming, a large backlog isn't a bad thing. It shows that many nominators want to use GA as a tool to improve the encyclopedia. It also allows reviewers to choose from a wide selection of articles that interest them. From a nominator's perspective, the main concern is the expected wait time before receiving a review, not the number of articles on the nominations page. Can't we force nominators to review articles? Quid pro quo reviewing (editors must review an article before nominating, perhaps after a grace period) was regularly proposed and always rejected as likely leading to lower quality reviews and fewer nominations from excellent content creators who may not wish to review another person's work. What order do nominations appear on the Good article nominations page? One advantage of reviewing articles to help the Misplaced Pages community is the GAN appearance order: the more articles you have reviewed relative to articles you have nominated, the higher up in the queue your nomination will appear on the GAN page. Note that above this, order preference is given to nominators who are new to GA. What if the nominator is a (perhaps dynamic) IP address? Any editor with significant contributions to the article may nominate an article for GA status (while only registered users may review), so significant-contributor IP nominators are permitted. Non-significant contributors should follow the advice above for editors who have not significantly contributed to the article. Dynamically changing IP nominators may want to clarify to the reviewer that, despite their signature, they remain the same person. Can I nominate an article I haven't significantly contributed to? No. Nominations from editors who have not substantially contributed will be removed unless the nomination shows that the article's regular editors were consulted on its talk page alongside a note on the GAN template showing their commitment to the process, e.g., |note=Adopted following extensive improvement by another editor. In the past, many drive-by nominators did not know the article or its sources and did not respond to questions by the reviewer. Review process I want to review an article. Do I have to review the oldest unreviewed nomination first? Thank you for deciding to review an article for GA. You may review any nominated article you are not involved in, regardless of the nomination's age or position in the queue. As a reviewer, I want to help the nominator improve the article, but it already meets the criteria. What am I supposed to do now? The purpose of a GA review is to determine whether the article meets the GA criteria. Article-improvement discussions are intended to prevent near-misses in nominated articles that almost meet the criteria. If the article already meets the criteria when you first review it, then explain exactly what you've checked in each of the main criteria (e.g., "I have verified there is no original research, copyright violations, plagiarism, unreliable sources, bias, edit wars, or untagged images.") and list it as a Good article. "Quick passes" are as legitimate as quick fails, although they are less common. Please do not make a list of nitpicky details or exceed the written requirements of the Good article criteria in an effort to make the review look rigorous. Instead, thank the nominator for presenting such a polished article, and encourage them to submit another. Who can respond to the review? The nominator is expected to respond to the reviewer's suggestions to improve the article, while everyone interested in the article is encouraged to participate in the review, not just the person who happened to nominate it. Nominators have no special privileges over other editors except that they can withdraw the nomination. Should nominators respond to reviewers' concerns? And what should reviewers do if they don't? The nominator has an interest in seeing the article become GA, so the nominator will likely want to respond to the reviewer to improve the article. In fact, all editors interested in the article are encouraged to respond to reviewers' concerns. However, nobody, including the nominator, is required to. If the reviewer identifies concerns directly related to the good article criteria and no one addresses the concerns, then no one should be surprised if the reviewer declines to list the article. If the article does not meet the Good article criteria after the reviewer has waited a reasonable amount of time for the nominator to make improvements, the reviewer is sure to fail the nomination. Future article editors may benefit from review comments on how to improve the article. The nominator disagrees with the reviewer. Can another reviewer take over? If your GAN experience is not going well or if you are disagreeing with the reviewer's decisions, then you may allow the review to fail, take the reviewer's suggestions into account, then renominate the article immediately (to get a different reviewer). If the reviewer has not yet failed the nomination, you may try asking them to ask for a second opinion. Other than these, another reviewer does not normally take over an active review. To prevent avoidable disputes, reviewers should either not make comments unrelated to the Good article criteria, or they should carefully label those suggestions as optional (e.g., "I know that citation formatting is not required by the Good article criteria, and I will not consider this when making my decision, but if you might send this to Misplaced Pages:Featured articles later, then that process requires consistent citation formatting"). Does an article have to be on hold for exactly seven days? No. Whether to place the nomination on hold at all, and the length of any such hold, is for the reviewer to decide. Depending on the quality of the article and the responsiveness of the nominator, a hold may not be necessary. If the reviewer decides that it is, they may choose longer or shorter periods of hold time. The reviewer may even modify the {{GA nominee}} template on the article talk page to include a "time" parameter, for example, "time=fourteen days", and the {{GANotice}} template used to convey messages to the GA nominator to include a "days" parameter, for example "days=fourteen". Keep in mind that protracted reviews show up as exceptions on the GA nominations report page. What should I do if a review page becomes inactive? This can happen for a number of reasons. Review pages should only be started by reviewers who are willing to take an active interest in the article and are committed to completing their review of the article in a timely manner. Sometimes another editor (such as the nominator) starts the review page by mistake. A reviewer can fix this by placing their signature after "Reviewer:" towards the top of the review page, but if no reviewer is forthcoming, it may be best to delete the review page: requests for such deletions may be posted at the discussion page. If a new reviewer is truly needed, follow the instructions page under "If a review seems abandoned". Do not use this process to void a review you disagree with. I failed the article, and the nominator just nominated it again without fixing the problems I identified! That's okay. There is no time limit between nominations, and this is the recommended process if the nominator disagrees with your review. Let someone else review it this time. The new reviewer is sure to read your comments while independently deciding on their assessment. If your concerns were legitimate, then the new reviewer will doubtless agree with you and also decline to list the article as GA. If the article is passed and you do not believe it meets the good article criteria, you can initiate a reassessment. How can GA be reliable when a single reviewer decides? The quality of a Good article is only as reliable as the most recent review and articles may deteriorate if unattended. The GA process deals with both of these issues by allowing repeat reviews by any registered user at any time. The process aims to encourage article improvement and build consensus on quality through multiple reviews—even though a single reviewer makes the decision whether to list the article according to the GA criteria. Any editor may contribute to any review discussion and reassessment is available when the "one reviewer decides" model breaks down. What if I have concerns about the quality of a review or need to resolve a dispute over the GA process? You can bring those concerns to the GA nominations discussion page to get help from other editors. Remember, however, to notify all users about whom concerns have been raised or who are involved in any dispute that you have.

Archives

18 March 2006 – 15 April 2006 15 April 2006 – June 3 2006 April 2006 – Jun 2006 Jun 2006 – Aug 2006 Sept 2006 – April 2007 April 2007 – July 2007 July 2007 – September 2007 September 2007 – February 2008 February 2008 – May 2008 May 2008 – September 2008 October 2008 – March 2009 March 2009 – August 2009 September 2009 – May 2010 June 2010 – January 2011 January 2011 -

This page has archives. Sections older than 7 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

This talk page should be used for discussions relating to the nominating and reviewing of Good article nominations. Please direct any comments regarding the improvement of the GA program as a whole to WikiProject Good Articles. Thank you.

• WT:GAN

Request for reviewers for educational assignments GANs (for mid-November)

Some of you may already be familiar with that :) As I've done in the past, I am assigning my students to improve sociology-related articles on Misplaced Pages to Good Article. Since this is an educational assignment, the students will need their work reviewed within few days of them requesting a review (they are supposed to request one by November 14, and the course ends within a month of that - and we cannot expects the students to contribute past the grading period, sadly). At the same time I'd ask the reviewers to give students extra time if they need it - some groups may need an entire month to address the issues raised (and some may do it within days - no different from an average editor, really...). Just as I've done in the past several times, I am asking for reviewers to pre-sign for the articles to be reviewed (list below), and in exchange I promise to review myself an article from our backlog (I'll start soon). This time there will be eleven articles to review:

Group 1: College dating (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Group 2: Grounds for divorce (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Group 3: Double burden (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Group 4: Family honor (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Group 5: Personal wedding website (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Group 6: Single parent (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Group 7: Marriage in the United States (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Group 8: Family in advertising (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Group 9: Open relationship (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Group 10: Bride scam (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Group 11: Joint custody (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Promised reviews by me on my end of the bargain: 1) Talk:Weiquan movement/GA1 2) Talk:Nuclear energy policy of the United States/GA1 3) Talk:Tom Kahn/GA1 4) Talk:Birth control movement in the United States/GA1 5) Talk:Collaborative fiction/GA1 6) Talk:Outlaw Star/GA1 7) Talk:United Nations Security Council Resolution 82/GA1 8) Talk:Ivan Shishman of Bulgaria/GA1

If you would like to review one or more articles, please post here and cross it from the list above. I'll post the articles I've initiated a review for here, too. Thanks! PS. You are more than welcome to check the student progress before a good article review and offer comments. Some groups are progressing very quickly ( :) ), while others, despite graded course deadlines, have done little or nothing yet (sigh...). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 18:03, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

If any are able to complete it by the end of October and nominate it by then, I'm willing to review it quite quickly (if the students are anything like me though, they'll all be nom'd on the 14th lol). Beyond that I can't make any guarantees personally, as I plan to edit sparingly the last month or two of the year. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 18:29, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

I'll do one (joint custody). Sounds like fun. Just let me know the time line and if any groups have chosen it. AstroCog (talk) 02:14, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

I'll take Marriage in the US. Ditto with Astrocog's comments. Ruby comment! 03:50, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

I'm willing to take on Personal wedding website. I'm likely to have time to review this in November. I've cleaned up some of the other wedding-related articles on occasion, and based on the difficulties there, I sincerely wish the students luck with finding enough independent sources to write a decent article. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:55, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

I'm fine with reviewing any. Buggie111 (talk) 02:35, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, two down, nine to go (students are supposed to be already working on all of those articles, but their progress varies significantly). If you select an article from that list, please do not hesitate to drop by the article's talk page, introduce yourself to students and offer the any early advise you think is relevant. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 03:21, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Still waiting for more reviewers... :) --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 22:07, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

I've taken college dating and Bride Scam. Buggie111 (talk) 18:44, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

I'll take Grounds for divorce. Looks like it needs lots of work. Jezhotwells (talk) 02:35, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Single Parent looks like the best of the rest. You may need to start cracking the whip soon. AIRcorn (talk) 06:37, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Yep, I've begun doing so. In the end, however, I cannot force them to do anything, and some groups will probably produce problematic entries :( On the bright side, there are always those who do pretty good work, so... the usual :) --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 03:52, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Still need 5 more articles to be taken. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 02:46, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Three month backlog: incentives?

I notice there is a 3 month backlog in GAC (although it seems to vary widely between the various topic areas). Is that about average? or has it gotten larger lately? Has there ever been a discussion of processes to incentivize editors to perform GA reviews? For example, the Copy Editing guild awards barnstars for doing significant amounts of work; and DYK has a "quid pro quo" requirement where anyone submitting a DYK nomination must review a pending DYK. Have such processes been considered for GA? (Obviously, there would have to be some protections put in place to ensure that GA approvals were not given out without due process, but there are always ways to make that happen). --Noleander (talk) 16:53, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

The raw number of GANs has actually plateaued over the past few months. Unfortunately, people are tackling recently-added articles rather than ones that have been waiting for months. Part of it is them due to them only wanting to work on articles they like (can't blame them for that), and part of it is that the ones waiting may have some baggage with them. Quid pro quo's been discussed on shot down numerous times since some people can write but not review well and vice-versa. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 17:19, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

If the number of GANs is flat, that is the most important indicator, so I guess there is no reason for drastic action. As for older nominations languishing, that is a shame ... I'm wondering if there could be some way to incentivize reviewers to focus on the older nominations? It seems a bit odd to have a 3-month old nomination sitting there, and being skipped by dozens of reviewers. --Noleander (talk) 17:27, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

It seems perfectly normal to have some pop culture article skipped by dozens of reviewers in favor of geography (three weeks), history (two months), and science (two weeks). Perhaps what we need is a recruiting campaign that addresses arts and pop culture editors.

The current backlog stats are always listed in the first answer at the top of the /FAQ, by the way. Today's numbers show about 10% more nominations waiting for a reviewer than last year's average. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:40, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing out that backlog stat in the FAQ ... I wasn't aware of that. --Noleander (talk) 17:49, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

FWIW, I just stumbled on Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Good articles/GAN backlog elimination drives, which is more or less what I was driving at (based on what I've seen in the Copy Editing realm) so it appears someone else already had that idea for GAC and followed through on it. If there is another GA drive someday, I'd be happy to participate. --Noleander (talk) 02:31, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

WhatamIdoing's "some pop culture article skipped" is a target, IMO because reviewers can get a good or a terrible article - and the terrible article are protected by fanatics. --Philcha (talk) 14:35, 27 October 2011 (UTC) e.

Is it time for another drive? Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 14:39, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Three months seems like a long time to me. Granted, the best long term solution may be something like "recruit more reviewers who have an interest in the big-backlog topic areas" but I have not yet seen anything specific proposed towards that end. Should we post notifications on the relevant project pages? Or institute some kind of project-wide QPQ (that is, new articles within a project cannot be nominated for GA until the backlog is under 2 months?). Unless some specific initiative is started, then, yes, GA drives will be periodically needed. From glancing at the GA drive history, it looks like they are more or less on an annual schedule: the last two were in the Spring. Maybe just have an annual springtime GA drive? --Noleander (talk) 15:46, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

I think limiting the flow would be better. What about only allowing a person to only have a certain number (2?) of nominations in any given category at once? Much of the backlog is caused by editors mass nominating similar articles. I would also like to see Sport, Music and Theatre, Film and Drama (maybe Literature as well) divided into subsections if possible. Many important articles (Bands, Genres, Sports, Actors) are being lost amoungst less important articles (Songs, Games, Episodes). AIRcorn (talk) 20:59, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Having a two nomination limit at this time would reduce Music by 29, Theatre by 11, Literature by 7, Law by 7, Transport by 6, War by 6 and Sport by 4 (three nomination limit changes the figures to 17, 4, 6, 6, 3, 3, and 0 respectively). The law and literature numbers are due to just a single person mass nominating, while music has twelve nominators with three or more current nominations. AIRcorn (talk) 22:48, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

That's an interesting suggestion. I wonder if it could be enhanced to include a quid-pro-quo exception, as in: "A nominator can have at most M articles open for GA consideration at once. However, that quantity can be increased if the nominator reviews articles (for every article reviewed, the nominator can submit one additional article) but, of course, the nominator must be willing and able to perform competent reviews (no rubber stamping :-)." I dunno, maybe that is getting too legalistic. --Noleander (talk) 22:52, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Personally I am not a fan of QPQ as I think it could affect the quality of the reviews. Does anyone with experience at DYK know how it has worked there, the talk page archives seems to contain a lot of complaints about it. With this proposal there will be the indirect incentive of reviewing articles so that yours gets to the head of the queue faster. AIRcorn (talk) 23:06, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) I saw this appear in my watchlist. I think some form of drive is a good idea. I work on Music articles, and there are currently 90 articles waiting to be reviewed/process of being reviewed. And I saw that even though some music articles had been waiting over two months (number 5, Romances, nominated by Erick on August 17 is the oldest one waiting to be reviewed), Talk:Mahalia Jackson/GA1 was nominated on October 21 and was selected to be reviewed less than 5 days later, yet the reviewer hasn't even reviewed anything in the article yet. My point is, I think it's a bit unfair that people are waiting nearly two and a half months without any sign of getting reviewed, yet some people review nominations which are literally 2/3/4 days old. I understand that people will review ones they are interested in, but I think it should be made a rule that no one can review a nomination less than a week old (if there is over a certain amount of articles in that topic waiting to be reviewed); perhaps this way people will be prompted to review older ones. Calvin • 22:24, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

I disagree with this sort of instruction creep. Editors are free to review any articles listed at WP:GAN, and if I choose not to review articles about trivial pop music or musicians who fail to interest me, that is my business. Jezhotwells (talk) 22:56, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

It isn't nice for nominators to have to wait such a long time for a review; I've been there, and it can be discouraging. However, making such a rule would not encourage me to review articles that I am not (for whatever reason) interested in reviewing. By the way, it's now (almost exactly) three days since I initiated the Mahalia Jackson review. That's not ideal (not exactly outrageous either), and I nearly always begin reviews immediately after selecting them. I intended to start this one later on the 26th, but have been kept off Misplaced Pages by real life issues. That really has no bearing on this discussion though. There is a shortage of reviewers; preventing them from reviewing the nominations they're inclined to review is unlikely to encourage them to stick around.--BelovedFreak 23:19, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Positive reinforcement is always a good idea. Some form of GAN-reviewer award of barnstar has been long overdue. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 23:21, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Responding to some of the comments above, I think it may be time for another GAN drive, perhaps in December when people are home and have time available to review. I don't like QPQ for reasons stated, but I'm leaning towards a maximum number, though I would go to 5 at the lowest (it would only cut the backlog by 20 or so, but those affected may be more inclined to review). I get annoyed at the ones that sit for 3-4 months without a review, but there's not really a way to force them. Basically what ends up happening is that I tend to review them and do what I can, though I don't exactly do it with a good attitude as I would when reviewing an article I'm interested in. I would be fine waiting seven days to review (if you want to review the article that badly, you can wait a bit and see how it feels for the rest of them). Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 02:27, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

It's kind of like natural selection, you nominate a boring article or have acted like a dick when a previous one was reviewed then it sits around a lot longer. A limit may reduce the number of these articles coming through as it will affect mass nominators whose articles get picked up early less. I feel five is far too high though, it will barely make an impact. I like two, its not like it's a race and it will reduce the number of articles quite substantially, especially in music which is perennially backlogged. If someone is racing then they can still nominate in different categories, spreading the burdon amoungst reviewers. A backlog drive is only a temporary solution and are people really motivated by barnstars? I would much rather have a simple and personal thank you. AIRcorn (talk) 04:27, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

If the music (or any other subject) articles are taking some time to be reviewed, its in the nominators own interest to review some of those already waiting. I only review history articles, that's wheat interests me, but once or twice I have had a bad experience with other editors during a review and avoid their nominations. Limiting the number of nominations an editor is allowed, is a non starter IMO, nobody stays around here for ever, so why stifle article improvement. I also tend to review more than I nominate about three reviews for each nomination and have noticed other editors doing the same. Probably like me they want to get rid of the backlog so their own article has a better chance of a quick review. I would be happy with any drive but what guarantee is there that articles that have been waiting the longest would get reviewed? Jim Sweeney (talk) 08:24, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

It may be in their best interest but many are not doing it. Toa Nidhiki05 currently has nominated 10 articles in the music category and is reviewing none. They all seem to be individual songs written by one band. It's a similar case with Jherschel, SchroCat and Leszek Jańczuk. I don't see how this would stiffle article improvement. If they are only here to get a green spot then they are probably in the wrong business. It is not like DYK where articles go stale if they are not nominated straight away. Misplaced Pages:Peer review limits individuals to four articles at a time, and in theory it should be easier to do most peer reviews than a good article review. Drives are all well and good, but why not look at some long-term solutions. AIRcorn (talk) 22:06, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

This is what is annoying me. Last night, Talk:Scott Joplin/GA1 was nominated at 22:14, 28th October 2011. By 22:58, 28th October 2011, it had a reviewer. Only 42 minutes went by. I'm sorry, but this nomination should be quick failed or something. I'm not allowed to review GANs anymore because I was told that I was only reviewing Mariah Carey articles and Mariah articles which were nominated a very short time before I reviewed them. Since this has been pointed out to me, I am now aware of how it is not fair and wrong. Calvin • 10:43, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

If you want to review those types of articles, go for it. Those that told you off probably won't review them anyway, so it's a bit hypocritical. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 15:28, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

It is probably not in the best interests of the project for one editor to focus on such a narrow group. Why not review some non-Mariah Carey articles in the music category? It's not like there is a shortage of Pop songs nominated. AIRcorn (talk) 22:06, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Agreed, in fact it is good to do articles on other topics as that, for me, has been illuminating in how to create my own good articles and get them promoted. Jezhotwells (talk) 00:34, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

I did review other articles, Beyonce; Leona Lewis; Lady Gaga; Rihanna. I don't review anymore, I was told not to. Calvin • 00:46, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

I've just very recently started reviewing GAs (I've only done two so far but intend to keep at it) but here are my thoughts on the issue. I totally agree with the "process of natural selection" view above. Those who nominate topics that are more appealing to GA reviewers, or have proved easier to work with in the past, or who have put in the time to write a well-sourced problem-free article that isn't going to be a hassle to review, will get their nominations reviewed sooner. I have no problem with that. Sure, two or three months is a long time to wait, but c'est la vie. There's no guarantee when you nominate an article that it's going to be reviewed lickety-split. And maybe it's no fun to see a bunch of newer articles reviewed ahead of yours, but I'd recommend those editors just get on with editing their next article, and eventually they will see their older article reviewed. If anything, I feel bad not for those who have to wait, but for people like Wizardman who feel obligated to review articles they aren't interested in. I may well occasionally review articles that I'm not interested in, but if I do, it will be more to lessen the load for reviewers like Wizardman, than out of any huge sympathy for those who have to wait a long time. Moisejp (talk) 19:24, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Glad you want to keep at it, despite the naysayers it can be an enjoyable process. While skipping articles you don't like is perfectly acceptable something really needs to be done about the backlog. If for nothing else than the possibility that it is turning people off nominating articles due to the perceived wait time. A major problem here is that the backlog has been around for so long now that it is ignored or accepted as part of the process. The FAQ even seems to suggest that having one is a good thing! Unfortunately until there is general agreement that something should be done then nothing will happen. My major beef at the moment with a three month wait is that a nominators situation may change. Of the last nine reviews I have conducted (all from near the end of the backlog) only one was finished with the original nominator. It is demoralising to invest time in a review and then to not get a response. AIRcorn (talk) 01:40, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

That makes sense. Well, I would support a drive, and take part in it. Moisejp (talk) 13:36, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

The three month backlog can be a problem. I recently saw a GA review in which the nominator had waited three months for the review and now he didn't have the time to respond. The last time I had a GAN I worried that someone might start reviewing while I was on vacation. I had already waited two months and didn't want to start all over. Obviously, it would be great if people would do one review per GAN and then pick the article from the top. Maybe we should just make a note of it somewhere in the process of nominating an article. --Maitch (talk) 18:01, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

It looks like there is consensus for a GA drive. 182.68.38.234 (talk) 01:53, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Reviewers are all volunteer's and if we start telling them which articles they have to review, they might not want to play any more. Look at DYK and the problems they have with Quid pro quo reviews. The articles listed the longest are one each in education, world history, language and linguistics, and two in theatre, film and drama, with the backlog down to ten weeks. Its not the end of the world, by all means have a drive but there is no need for any drastic measures.Jim Sweeney (talk) 19:10, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

There's the main problem, editors thinking that ten weeks (it's actually eleven) is acceptable. A GA drive is only going to be a temporary fix, the numbers will increase again quickly. AIRcorn (talk) 21:42, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

I think a drive is acceptable. I don't think any new rules about who can review or what people have to review is necessary. I have tried to do my part by reviewing articles further back in the backlog, and have even branched out in to articles outside my main interests of television and science. I quite enjoyed John Rowan, for example - an article unlikely to pique the interests of many reviewers due to its apparently dry and history-centric subject matter. One problem I have with reviews is that many GANs I have encountered seem to be nominations for the purpose of a peer review, rather than an assessment of the GA criteria that an an article meets. I'm not saying that GA reviews should be a quick rubric check, but when major structural changes, copy editing, or content additions are needed, I'd rather feel ok with doing a quick fail or withdrawal request than having to do a peer review to outline everything the nominator needs to do to improve the article. I have done that, and many nominators are good sports. Other have not been such good sports. That makes me less likely to start a review of a backlog article that I think will need major improvements. AstroCog (talk) 15:01, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Here is a graph showing the backlog since May 2007 taken from here. The bot has missed the odd day, but it should be a good representation. Depending on where you stand with good articles you could read different things into it. I think it is fair to say that for whatever reason the backlog currently equilibrates somewhere around 275 unreviewed articles. It also suggests that a backlog drive is effective at reducing the backlog, but not at keeping it down. I would feel better about doing a drive if there were some changes introduced aimed at permanently reducing the current equilibrium. AIRcorn (talk) 22:57, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

That graph, certainly for recent drives, suggests that the drives only very temporarily remove the backlog and after that it returns to normal and remains steady. Either I'd suggest doing a drive for two or three months or a post-drive surge be maintained to keep the backlog right down, maybe even eliminate all requests. And perhaps beyond that, some other idea to prevent the backlog resurfacing. Yep, just like a magic wand eh!? Brad78 (talk) 23:47, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

There is much value in a drive, even if levels return. It "clears out" the build-up, and contributes in other ways; for example by rewarding reviewers. Will someone knowledgeable take up the mantle of having one in December? Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 14:50, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Portia labiata

Talk:Portia labiata says the articles was promoted to GA on October 21, 2011 - see also Talk:Portia labiata/GA2, where User:Unionhawk reviewed. But Portia labiata still says, "An unassessed article ... Currently a good article nominee." How can it be resolved? --Philcha (talk) 23:38, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Looks fine to me. If the gadget is showing old assessment information, sometimes just reloading the page is all that's needed, but it loaded fine for me. Imzadi 1979 → 00:00, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Looks fine to me, too. I imagine the browser should be refreshed. Binksternet (talk) 00:19, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. --Philcha (talk) 16:06, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

How can Philcha help the GA project?

I am ill and must give up reviewing for GA. At the same time I can still write articles, hopefully to GA level but very slowly. Is there any way I can reduce the load on other reviewrs? --Philcha (talk) 16:38, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

You're not that big of a drain :P Just get well soon! Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs 18:26, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

I agree with David Fuchs; be selfish, think of yourself. But may I say that I find it rather creepy to talk about yourself in the third-person? ;-) Malleus Fatuorum 18:49, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

I'm sorry to hear that you're ill. If you wanted to "do something" that wouldn't take too much time or energy, and would avoid a lengthier commitment, then I have two suggestions:

• Look in at Misplaced Pages:Good article nominations/Report every now and again to see what's happening (if anything) with some of the oldest reviews. Sometimes people need to be prodded to wrap up old reviews, or we need a note here about a review that's been abandoned by its reviewer. Checking one or two and leaving a brief note if there's been no activity for several weeks takes only a couple of minutes. Similarly, sometimes old second-opinion requests can be resolved quickly, without requiring a significant commitment.
• Stop in at Misplaced Pages:Good article reassessment. Sometimes the issues are simple, so five minutes' work provides a significant benefit to the nominator.

I hope that you feel better soon. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:38, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Bot screw up

What is going on with the Boardwalk Empire review. I failed it and the bot removed it and showed it as being renominated.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 00:39, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

It seems to have corrected itself.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 05:28, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

It isn't a screw up, if the bot runs while you are changing the template this sort of thing can happen. Jezhotwells (talk) 13:09, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

December 2011 Backlog Elimination Drive

I've created a sub-page for the Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Good articles/GAN backlog elimination drives/December 2011. Let's organize our efforts there. I'll add some other stuff to it later. AstroCog (talk) 20:00, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Also, add your name if you want co-coordinate with me. AstroCog (talk) 20:01, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

I can jump in as a coordinator if needed, though I'd rather take a backseat and just review for one rather than running it. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 20:43, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

As I've suggested above, how about running the drive for two months? Brad78 (talk) 22:09, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. I'll make the change. AstroCog (talk) 22:17, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

2 months is too long. Even 1 month can cause coordinators to suffer burn out. (Trust me, I did one month before and it's gruesome.) One month of backlog elimination drive is good enough. OhanaUnited 03:18, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Start the drive now, say November 15, and let it run until the end of December as a compromise. A month and a half is not too long or too short and it also allows people who are going to be home for Thanksgiving to contribute. 88.80.28.70 (talk) 07:13, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanksgiving - remember the rest of the world. Jim Sweeney (talk) 07:16, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

While I understand burn out for a two-month drive, the statistics above always show the backlog bounces back to normal anyway. I just feel with a two-month drive, even if burnout happens during the second month, it should keep a lid on the bounce a little more than normal. Brad78 (talk) 22:09, 7 November 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.28.99.159 (talk)

• Do you want Signpost coverage for this? Maybe bring a wider audience. Crisco 1492 (talk) 16:11, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
  • There's a trade-off. While it's good to have more people aware of the drive, you may also bring sub-par reviewers which duplicates the efforts because their reviewers will have to be reviewed by third party. OhanaUnited 16:38, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
    • The more participants the better. If just a couple of new reviewers turn up and decide to stick around it will ease the burden in the long run and help keep the backlog down. AIRcorn (talk) 21:44, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

• Okay, I'll put a temporary blurb (in brief) in. Please ping me if there is a decision that we should not post it. Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:55, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Also, where is registration? Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:02, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Drive reviewers add their reviews to the Running total section on the drive page. Looking at past drives, I didn't see any registration pages/sections. AstroCog (talk) 02:20, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

• Alright, sounds good. And they sign their names on the page too? Crisco 1492 (talk) 07:04, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Just to point out for all here: there is a talk page for the upcoming drive here. AstroCog (talk) 02:20, 10 November 2011 (UTC)