Wikipedia:Good articles/GAN Backlog Drives/March 2014

WikiProject Good Articles: Open Tasks This project identifies, organizes and improves good articles on Wikipedia.
Nominations: Atlanta Braves (talk \| history \| start review) • LGBTQ culture in Puerto Vallarta (talk \| history \| start review) • Dick Simpson (politician) (talk \| history \| start review) • Darren Moore (talk \| history \| start review) • Pete Astudillo (talk \| history \| start review) Reassessment: 1980 National League West tie-breaker game • Ben Nevis • Concorde • The Nightmare • Walt Disney Animation Studios • Kingston upon Hull • USS Texas (BB-35) • Mehmed II's Albanian campaign • Wicked (musical) • Battle of Plataea • Task forces: Project quality • Sweeps • GAN Backlog Drives • GA Cup WikiProject Good articles newsletter (last updated January 2013)
Good article criteria \| Statistics \| GAN Report \| Changes log Nominations list \| edit

March 2014 GAN Backlog Drive

Wikipedia:Good articles
Participants: 7 (As of March 20)
Articles reviewed: 33 (As of March 20)
· · ·

The 2014 March GAN Backlog Drive is a month-long effort to reduce the backlog of Good Article nominations. Please make sure that you read the whole Good Article review process before starting to review an article, and that you are very familiar with the GA criteria and the WP:Manual of Style. It is strongly recommended reading the essays What the Good article criteria are not and Reviewing good articles. If you have questions, leave a message on the drive's talk page. The drive will begin on March 1, 2014 at 0:00:01 (UST) and will end on March 31, 2014 at 23:59:59 (UST).

The goal of this backlog drive is to bring the number of outstanding Good Article nominations down as a low as possible while maintaining quality over quantity reviews. All nominations listed at WP:GAN are eligible to be reviewed. Awards will be given out at the end of the drive (please read below for more info).

Basic Guidelines

Log completed Good Article reviews here. If you complete a GAN for an article, don't forget to sign your name in the table. Quick-fails will not be counted.
No rubber-stamping of GANs. Be thorough and complete in your GANs, and make sure all the i's are dotted and the t's crossed. Generally Good article nominations tend to result in even better improvements to articles and can go a long way especially when approaching Featured Article standing.
Provide constructive criticism. If you see a problem or problems in a certain article you're reviewing, don't be afraid to point that out and indicate to the nominator what's wrong. Instead of merely pointing to the problems, guide the nominator to possible ways of fixing those problems. Similarly, if the article is not of Good Article quality yet, don't be afraid to fail, but make sure you provide guidance as to how to get the article up to GA quality.
Stick with it. An article isn't improved if it remains on hold for months. Instead, make the smaller corrections, make sure the primary writer is actively editing, and make the pass/fail judgment if concerns are/are not addressed in a timely matter. Watch the talk page and look to see what's being done and if anyone has questions.
Have fun. We're here to help bring these articles up to their fullest potential and hence improving the overall quality of the encyclopedia. If you do not enjoy doing that, then there is no motivation to improve these articles and the encyclopedia as a whole.

Help Guides

Following is a list of all the guidelines needed/required to review Good Article nominees:

The Good article criteria

Wikipedia:GNG

Wikipedia:Manual of Style

Tools

When reviewing, you can use the following recommended tools:

When notifying nominator(s)

{{GANotice}}
{{GANotice2}}

When reviewing the article(s)

{{GAList}}
{{GAList2}}
{{GABox}}

Awards

All participants will have the opportunity to receive up to 3 barnstars (one per each of the following):

Participating in the Backlog Drive (reviewing articles)
Help ensure quality is priority by being part of the Review Team
Make a pledge (see below)

The 3 participants who have the most points at the end of the drive will receive the Golden, Silver, or Bronze Wikipedia Puzzle Piece Trophy, respectively.

Awards will only be given out once all reviews have been reviewed by the Review Team.

NOTE: Users who are found to have 2 or more insufficient reviews will not receive any awards.

Totals

Unlike previous drives, a new point system will be introduced for this drive. In general, older nominations are worth more points than newer nominations (see table below).

Nomination Age	Points
Over 4 months	10 points
Over 3 months	8 points
Over 2 months	6 points
Over 1 month	4 points
2 - 4 weeks	2 points
Under 2 weeks	1 point
Quickfails*	0 points

* No matter how old the nomination is, if you quickfail the article, it is worth 0 points.

Article reviews started before April 1, 2014 but completed before [or by] April 30, 2014 are eligible to be counted into the running total. Reviews started before March 1, 2014 do not count.

HOWEVER, an exception can be made to this rule. If the deadline (April 30, 2014) to complete any outstanding reviews is nearing and good progression is being made by the nominator on addressing any concerns brought up by the reviewer, please do not close the review as you will be awarded the points for the review based on if the review is deemed as a sufficient review at the time (even if it is not complete). If there is insufficient progress, points will not be awarded.

NOTE: Users who are found to have 2 or more insufficient reviews will not receive any awards.

The definition of an insufficient review for the purpose of this drive: An insufficient review is any completed review where there are still errors in the article that are not mentioned in the review that would cause the article to fail/require to be fixed by the nominator. Quickfails and reviews not completed before the deadline do not count as an "insufficient review".

Review Team

In order to ensure that quality is kept over quantity, all reviews from participants will need to be approved as a quality review before any awards are given out. For this to be done in a timely manner, we need as much help as we can.

If you would like to be part of the Review Team, please add your name below.

Also, please read the "For Review Team only" section under the "Directions" on the totals page.

Review Team Members

To update your totals or add your name to the list, click here.

Totals