Wikipedia talk:Good articles/GAN Backlog Drives/July 2024

Question thread[edit]

If anyone has any questions about the backlog drive, feel free to ask them here. (I'm mostly making this post simply to de-redlink the talk page.) -- asilvering (talk) 18:08, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I do have a question, actually. I'd like to participate, seeing as I'm relatively new to reviewing. How will we go about getting feedback from more experienced editors? Do they take a look at reviews at random, do we have to mention the experienced editors who have signed up, etc.? Thanks in advance! The Morrison Man (talk) 20:41, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Once the drive gets started and editors start claiming reviews, I'll put a list up on the main page of the drive so that experienced reviewers have an easier time finding the reviews that need a check. So, assuming that works (we haven't ever done a backlog drive quite like this before), you don't need to do anything. But if you want to set up a partner in advance, or if you want to get a specific reviewer to help you out, here are some ways you could find one:

go through the normal process at WP:GAMENTOR
make a thread on this talk page asking for help or for someone to check over your review
send a ping or talk page message to a particular reviewer you'd like to ask for help (but please only do this if you have some prior indication that they're interested, so people aren't getting pings out of nowhere)

If you get really stuck, contact a co-ord and we'll try to sort it out. -- asilvering (talk) 02:27, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I'll just go ahead and post a placeholder list right now, no reason that needs to wait. -- asilvering (talk) 02:28, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for letting me know! The Morrison Man (talk) 11:09, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Probably a dumb question, but I began my fifth GA review recently but the nominator says he won't be able to get to it until 3 July; when it's wrapped up, will that count as a point for the drive or no? ThaesOfereode (talk) 12:31, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If the review already started before 1 July, and you already left some comments there, then no, the GA review does not count. Vacant0 (talk • contribs) 13:56, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

To clarify, do quick fails receive any points or no? Also is it possible to put any articles “on hold” until the July 1st date? Dr. Swag Lord (talk) 20:37, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In previous backlogs, quick fails did receive 1 point if they were valid. I do not think that there is a definition on what a valid quick fail is, though. I might be wrong. If you've already started a GA review before 1 July, it won't be counted in the backlog. Vacant0 (talk • contribs) 20:56, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. In your opinion, how would you deal with an article where the majority of the sources are primary, unreliable, or WP:QS? Dr. Swag Lord (talk) 21:27, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Dr.Swag Lord, Ph.d I would quickfail it. If there are simply many questionable sources, I personally would do a fuller review than a quickfail. But if it's a majority? No. That is "a long way from meeting the GA criteria", so explain your reasoning, quickfail it, and move on. -- asilvering (talk) 22:50, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Agree. Vacant0 (talk • contribs) 18:15, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

To second that, yes, QFs are still reviews and still get points, provided that they are eligible in the first place - see the guidelines on minimum quality, constructive criticism, etc. You don't need to write an essay, but the nominator should be able to clearly understand what actions they need to take to get the article to resubmittable quality.

To take your "majority of sources are unreliable" example from below, if that's all you say, that's probably insufficient for the editor to understand, since we can presume that they believed the sources were reliable when they nominated the article. This is a quickfail I gave for an article that had that problem (among others). I was very brief, but I did give some pointers rather than just saying "unreliable", eg: Many of these sources are simply working off articles by other newsrooms; many articles I checked have no byline. In my opinion, this is about the minimum required. -- asilvering (talk) 22:57, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Asilvering, thank you for your detailed reply. I agree that a majority of low-quality sources should result in a quickfail. I intend to give the nominator a detailed rationale. Dr. Swag Lord (talk) 23:15, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Legacy coord[edit]

I'm not able to join you in coordinating this drive, but please ping if I can answer questions or help out! (t · c) buidhe 04:06, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! -- asilvering (talk) 06:40, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]