Wikipedia talk:Good articles/GAN Backlog Drives/May 2025

Reviews needing re-review

Starting off a general topic for this in case we end up with more of them.

@Vacant0, with apologies for backseat co-ording here, I see you declined points for @Alachuckthebuck's first review, so I went to go have a look at it to see if we needed to put it up for 2O, but it looks like they have actually clearly checked all the relevant criteria, so I'm not sure they shouldn't get points for it? I'm not seeing any obvious reason to re-open the review, anyway. Chuck, if you put your reviews up for review by experienced reviewers under Wikipedia:Good articles/GAN Backlog Drives/May 2025#Progress, this lets you avoid this problem, and get some feedback from an experienced reviewer while you're at it. -- asilvering (talk) 20:53, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Asilvering, I didn't put it up for a 2O because I had it checked by @IntentionallyDense and @Cowboygilbert by my request on the wikimedia discord server. All the Best -- Chuck ^Talk 01:56, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I will say that because I didn't watchlist the page and only checked the page over through discord, I didn't quite get a chance to see the final version before it was passed, hence why this slipped under the radar a bit. I'm going to give some additional feedback on the review page itself. IntentionallyDense ^(Contribs) 03:32, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think one ought to put them up for review anyway, so IntentionallyDense or Cowboygilbert or whomever else can get backlog drive points while they're at it. Just saying. -- asilvering (talk) 06:30, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm currently working with the reviewer to make sure things go smoothly with this review so I'm pretty sure this should all be smoothed over soon. IntentionallyDense ^(Contribs) 16:19, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'll take another look at the review once IntentionallyDense helps them out. Vacant0 (talk • contribs) 09:30, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi coordinators: Did I miss a limited sign-up window, or are participants supposed to add themselves to the list manually? 'Cause I can do that, but I don't want to interfere with your system or violate the rules of the drive.

Another possibility: I am missing something in plain sight...

Cheers, Patrick 🐈‍⬛ (talk) 22:27, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, you have to add yourself manually. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 22:37, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the quick response! Will do. Patrick 🐈‍⬛ (talk) 22:41, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

COI with approving articles I helped with

I've been avoiding approving any of the GA reviews that I was the experienced editor on. I'm just wondering if this is something reviewers have done in the past or if I can approve these. I'm talking about assigning points to the new reviewers not myself here. Pings: Vacant0, asilvering, and DaniloDaysOfOurLives. IntentionallyDense ^(Contribs) 16:11, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I avoided checking them off when I was in your shoes. -- asilvering (talk) 06:50, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good, I will continue to avoid then! IntentionallyDense ^(Contribs) 03:39, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I also avoided doing that in past drives. Vacant0 (talk • contribs) 17:55, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Prosesize & non-prose text

Can I run bulleted text through a word counter and add that to the prose size? voorts (talk/contributions) 21:31, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I mean usually we round to the nearest 500 as we check reviews for assigning points. I do agree that if a significant portion of the word count was bullet points it would be somewhat unfair to not allow points to be earned off of that however, I'm not sure if this is something we have allowed in past drives. IntentionallyDense ^(Contribs) 01:26, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Bonus points for quickfails

@Vacant0: Do quickfails not get bonus points based on word count? I didn't see anything in the scoring section on that. Thanks, voorts (talk/contributions) 01:24, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

At first I thought that we have given them each a point in past drives, but looks like I was wrong. I'll adjust your points now. Vacant0 (talk • contribs) 10:25, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Remaining "Reviews that need an experienced reviewer"

I'm not sure what we did in previous years but I just wanted to clarify that the reviews listed under "Reviews that need an experienced reviewer" could still be claimed by experienced reviewers even though the drive has ended. IntentionallyDense ^(Contribs) 05:10, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

yup. Vacant0 (talk • contribs) 11:19, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If these don’t get picked up within the next few days it may be a good idea to make a post to WT:GAN to remind people IntentionallyDense ^(Contribs) 21:37, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'd take a look at them if I had more free time, but sadly I can't. I think a talk page post will be enough to bring attention. Vacant0 (talk • contribs) 14:06, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Finishing off

I want to apologise for being kind of inactive during the month (some real-life stuff popped out of nowhere). I'll finish off what we have left and then @IntentionallyDense: we can slowly award points and barnstars to participants! Vacant0 (talk • contribs) 11:22, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@IntentionallyDense: I've awarded barnstars to those who have finished all of their reviews (and are eligible to earn barnstars ofc). We still have a couple of editors left to award once they finish their reviews. Vacant0 (talk • contribs) 14:05, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good, I am going to track down some inactive reviewers. IntentionallyDense ^(Contribs) 02:45, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Just wanted to note - all of my nominations are finished since the 15th :) (Not trying to rush anyone, just wanted to write her in case I should have said something earlier) DaniloDaysOfOurLives (talk) 04:39, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]