Wikipedia:Good articles/GAN Backlog Drives/June 2022

The June 2022 GAN Backlog Drive is a one-month-long effort to reduce the backlog of Good Article nominations. Please review articles according to the GA criteria and the Manual of Style; we also recommend the essays What the Good article criteria are not and Reviewing good articles. The co-ordinators for this drive are Buidhe, Hog Farm, Trainsandotherthings, Harrias, Kavyansh.Singh, and Shushugah. The drive began on 1 June 2022 at 00:00:00 (UTC) and ended on 30 June 2022 at 23:59:59 (UTC).

The ultimate goal of this backlog elimination drive is to promote high-quality reviewing and cut the number of outstanding GANs and in particular those which have been in the queue 90 days or more. Awards will be given out to those individuals who do the most work in helping reduce the size of the backlog.

1. Give preference to older nominations. While any review counts for the drive, nominations which have been in the queue the longest, identified below, should be given extra consideration, and are eligible for extra points.
2. Log completed GANs here. If you complete a GAN for an article, don't forget to list it here so that you can get credit for the review.
3. Review thoroughly. To be counted in the drive, if the article passes GAN, the review must (1) address all of the GA criteria (2) provide constructive suggestions for improvement (3) verify at least some citations in the article. If the article fails GAN, the review must (1) explain why the article does not meet the GA criteria and (2) provide concrete recommendations for improving the article to GA quality. The coordinators welcome help from experienced reviewers in checking reviews during the drive; please apply this checklist.
4. 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 judgement if concerns are/are not addressed in a timely matter. Generally, it is standard for a GA review to be on hold for seven days, although the reviewer may close their review when they see fit.
5. Have fun. We're here to help bring these articles up to their fullest potential and hence improve 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.

Numbers are reported as described here.

Graphs are unavailable due to technical issues. Updates on reimplementing the Graph extension, which will be known as the Chart extension, can be found on Phabricator and on MediaWiki.org.

To receive an award, please include your name and the number of reviews you have completed as part of this drive. Awards will be given by the co-ordinators after this drive ends.

This is the scheme for the awards:

At least 3 points: The Invisible Barnstar

At least 7 points: The Working Wikipedian's Barnstar

At least 15 points: The Tireless Contributor Barnstar

At least 20 points: The Reviewer Barnstar

At least 30 points: The Multiple Good Article Reviewer Barnstar

At least 40 points: The WikiProject Good Articles Medal of Merit

At least 60 points: The Order of the Superior Scribe of Wikipedia

In addition, the person who accumulates the most points during the backlog elimination drive will receive the Content Review Medal of Merit

• One point is awarded for every article reviewed.
• If a nomination is identified in the below "List of qualifying old articles", the review of that article is worth an extra half point (except for quick-fails).

The following list contains all nominations that are currently 90+ days old. A review of these articles is thus worth an extra half point.

• After starting a review of one of these articles, please remove it from the list
• This list will be updated as additional nominations become 90+ days old
• If nearly all nominations that are 90+ days old are placed on review, then nominations that are 75+ days old will become eligible for the extra half point. Subsequently, if nearly all nominations that are 75+ days old are placed on review, then nominations that are 60+ days old will become eligible, and so on.

The below articles have had their nominations abandoned, or need a second opinion.

• Reviews of these articles count towards points in the same way as other articles (1 point per review; 1.5 point if old).

Keep a running total of your reviewing in the Participants section below by creating your own list. Only passes and fails will be recognised as completing a review. If necessary, you can put the article on hold if the article needs to be edited further to be passed. Each of your reviews should be included in your list. Article reviews started before 30 June but completed after 30 June can be included in the running total – however should be completed as quickly as possible to avoid being too late. Reviews started before 1 June do not count. Please state if the article is a pass, fail, or on hold. Make sure you follow up on reviews that you have started or placed on hold.

A sample review section is below; all sections start with a fourth-level header containing the editor's username and the {{Div col}} and {{Div col end}} templates. Between those templates, each article reviewed is given its own line. Use the "GA" icon line for an article that passes, the "FGAN" icon line for an article that fails, the "GAH" icon line for an article where the initial review is complete and has been placed on hold, and the "GAN" icon line for an article where the review has started but has not yet been placed on hold. (Change "GAN" and "GAH" to "GA" or "FGAN" when the article passes or fails.) If the nomination is identified above as old when you begin your review, add "(old)" after the link to the nomination page. Following the {{Div col end}} template are two lines to tabulate each participant's total number of articles reviewed and the total number of old nominations reviewed.

====[[User:Username|Username]]====
{{Div col}}
#{{icon|GA}} [[Talk:Articlename/GAn|Articlename]] (old)
#{{icon|FGAN}} [[Talk:Articlename/GAn|Articlename]]
#{{icon|GAH}} [[Talk:Articlename/GAn|Articlename]] (old)
#{{icon|GAN}} [[Talk:Articlename/GAn|Articlename]]
{{Div col end}}
<small>'''Articles reviewed:'''
<br>'''Old nominations reviewed:'''</small>

Articles reviewed: 5
Old nominations reviewed: 4

Articles reviewed: 13
Old nominations reviewed: 0

Articles reviewed: 0
Old nominations reviewed: 0

Articles reviewed: 14
Old nominations reviewed: 9

Articles reviewed: 3
Old nominations reviewed: 1

Articles reviewed: 7
Old nominations reviewed: 0

Articles reviewed: 3
Old nominations reviewed: 0

Articles reviewed: 4
Old nominations reviewed: 2

Articles reviewed:
Old nominations reviewed:

Articles reviewed: 2
Old nominations reviewed: 0

Articles reviewed: 3
Old nominations reviewed: 1

Articles reviewed: 0
Old nominations reviewed: 1

Articles reviewed: 1
Old nominations reviewed: 1

Articles reviewed: 4
Old nominations reviewed: 1

Articles reviewed: 6
Old nominations reviewed: 0

Articles reviewed: 7
Old nominations reviewed: 0

Articles reviewed: 5
Old nominations reviewed: 3

Articles reviewed: 0
Old nominations reviewed: 0

Articles reviewed: 0
Old nominations reviewed: 16

Articles reviewed: 2
Old nominations reviewed: 8

Articles reviewed: 0
Old nominations reviewed: 0

Articles reviewed: 0
Old nominations reviewed: 0

Articles reviewed: 4
Old nominations reviewed: 3

Articles reviewed: 0
Old nominations reviewed: 0

Articles reviewed: 0
Old nominations reviewed: 0

Articles reviewed: 9
Old nominations reviewed: 2

Articles reviewed: 0
Old nominations reviewed: 0

Articles reviewed: 0
Old nominations reviewed: 0

Articles reviewed: 1
Old nominations reviewed: 0

Articles reviewed: 11
Old nominations reviewed: 8

Articles reviewed:
Old nominations reviewed:

Articles reviewed: 3
Old nominations reviewed: 2

Articles reviewed: 2
Old nominations reviewed: 0

Articles reviewed: 0
Old nominations reviewed: 0

Articles reviewed: 0
Old nominations reviewed: 0

Articles reviewed: 0
Old nominations reviewed: 0

Articles reviewed: 0
Old nominations reviewed: 0

Note: am a new GA reviewer. I would appreciate any comments on my reviews and confirmation if I am doing them properly. I want to help, not create more work so please let me know if I am achieving that aim. Also, I note when I started the reviews, the bot added notices to the nominators talk page and did everything properly. Both times when I finished the review though, (following instructions and using the templates), the bot never left notices on nom. Also, I notice the Good Article icon has not updated, it is on the right hand side however the class icon remains B. Thanks MaxnaCarta (talk) 03:40, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• The article info tool that displays the B is using an old copy of the database. The server admins expect this to get better by itself in the next days. —Kusma (talk) 10:57, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Thanks @Kusma MaxnaCarta (talk) 12:50, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Articles reviewed: 3
Old nominations reviewed: 3

Articles reviewed: 2
Old nominations reviewed: 2

Articles reviewed: 0
Old nominations reviewed: 0

Articles reviewed: 4
Old nominations reviewed: 0

Articles reviewed: 0
Old nominations reviewed: 0

Articles reviewed:
Old nominations reviewed:

Articles reviewed: 0
Old nominations reviewed: 0

Articles reviewed: 0
Old nominations reviewed: 0

Articles reviewed: 5
Old nominations reviewed: 0

Articles reviewed: 0
Old nominations reviewed: 0

Articles reviewed: 0
Old nominations reviewed: 0

Articles reviewed: 5
Old nominations reviewed: 0

Articles reviewed: 1
Old nominations reviewed: 1

I'm not going to finish my review in time, but just wanted to say thank you for running this drive and that it inspired me to start a review. :)

Articles reviewed: 0
Old nominations reviewed: 0

Articles reviewed: 0
Old nominations reviewed: 0

Articles reviewed: 0
Old nominations reviewed: 0

Articles reviewed: 0
Old nominations reviewed: 0

Articles reviewed: 0
Old nominations reviewed: 0

Articles reviewed: 0
Old nominations reviewed: 0

Articles reviewed: 0
Old nominations reviewed: 0

Articles reviewed: 7
Old nominations reviewed: 1

Articles reviewed: 0
Old nominations reviewed: 0

Articles reviewed: 5
Old nominations reviewed: 4

Articles reviewed: 0
Old nominations reviewed: 0

Articles reviewed: 0
Old nominations reviewed: 0

Articles reviewed: 5
Old nominations reviewed: 2

Articles reviewed:
Old nominations reviewed:

Articles reviewed: 5
Old nominations reviewed: 4

Articles reviewed: 0
Old nominations reviewed: 0

Articles reviewed: 0
Old nominations reviewed: 0