User:Mike Christie/FACstats monthly data

This page links to pages showing the individual review credits for each month's FACs, starting with November 2023.

Review statistics pages

• March 2024
• February 2024
• January 2024
• December 2023
• November 2023

Column headings

• Article: The name of the article. If it's been moved use the new name.
• Archive: The FAC archive number.
• P/A: P for promotion, A for archive.
• Editor: Name of the relevant editor. Always the actual underlying username, never any sig name. The bot does this. For renames, use whatever the bot uses with an exception or two noted below.
• Role: The next three columns are the ones that need judgement. Role can be one of N for nominator or C for coord. Anyone else should be blank.
• Type: Blank for a content review, S for source review, I for image/media review, A for acccessibility review.
• Declaration:
  • Blank if no declaration was ever made
  • S for support
  • OS for oppose converted to support
  • SS for a struck support
  • SO for a struck oppose
  • Supports converted to oppose are not tracked.

Instructions for correcting FAC data

1. Open one screen on the featured log for the relevant month and one on the table to be updated. Use visual editor if possible.
2. Scroll both files and for each row, scan and verify that the data is correct.
3. The bot assumes the person opening the FAC is the nominator so this is very rarely wrong. Conominators both get an "N" in role and blank out the next columns.
4. Editors only get one row per FAC except when they have two roles (other column) -- S and blank, or S, blank, and I, for example. If they're a nominator blank out any C or review records (should never happen); if they're flagged as coord (C) blank out N but a review record would override if real so blank out the C.
5. C records are for coords (automatically marked). Coords can recuse so this is a source of possible errors. The threshold for counting a coord comment as a recused review is a judgement call -- don't bother if it's just a couple of MoS questions at the end as they're considering promotion, but after, say four or five comments I'll credit a review. The bot will ignore C records; they're only there for convenience if they need to be converted to an S or blank or I or A.
6. Put an S in the role if:
   • The reviewer declares or creates a "source review" or "spotchecks" or similar section name
   • The review does a significant follow up to help out in that section. There is some nuance here. E.g. Editor A might post half-a-dozen comments in this section so create an S record for them, but further down it is apparent they did a full content review. In those case it's a judgement call; delete the source review record (or just delete the S to change it to a blank so it's a content review) or add an additional review row for the content review. There is usually no need to credit with a full S review in most such cases. If a reviewer who has not otherwise contributed to the FAC puts in such a comment, keep the record but use an S only if it is substantial. If more than one person does a source review, even partial, they each get a credit.
   • Some reviewers will include formatting in a content review. This is a judgement call again; credit the reviewer with both a content review and source review if the source review is sufficiently substantial.
7. Image reviews get an I, and are subject to the same comments as source reviews regarding additional commenters on image topics.
8. A row in the table should be deleted completely if the comment is not a review. Anyone whose *only* comment is not intended to help with promotion/archiving decisions can be deleted -- e.g. "can we move this to the talk page" or "please don't use tq". This may require checking the history of the FAC to find the edits, particularly if it was just a formatting edit.
9. Review comments on talk page. There *should* always be a note and a link.
10. Collapsed sections. Always expand them if there's any doubt about whether reviewer X was an S or I.
11. Declarations. Enter any bolded declarations. If it's clear that there was a prior oppose or support make it OS or SS as appropriate. If a user says something like "you can count this as a support/oppose" rather than bolding, include those declarations. If in doubt try to determine if a coord would consider it a declaration. Any call to withdraw expressed in a way a coord would pay attention to is counted as an oppose.