Wikipedia talk:Good articles/GAN Backlog Drives/April–May 2020

Co-ordinators

As I copied this from the September drive, it has Barkeep49 and Lee Vilenski listed as co-ordinators; is this a role either of you would like to continue for this drive, or would you rather step back? I am happy to assist, either alongside or in your place. Harrias ^talk 06:24, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

Sure, I'd like to reprise my role. I don't think I'll be able to do a ridiculous amount of reviews this time round, but happy to support barkeep in tallying the scores as I did before. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 07:57, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

Well it won't be supporting me as I do not have capacity to coordinate this time. Hopefully Harrias is ready and able? Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 15:54, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

Looks like we're set with Harrias and Lee Vilenski, based on yesterday's edits to the drive page. Note that I'm happy to again do some of the gnomish work as I did for September's drive, like the daily totals and suchlike—I've updated the tab selectors page that goes on the top of the various GAN pages to include this drive and added a banner for the drive at the top of the GAN page—though not checking reviews and tallying scores. BlueMoonset (talk) 05:02, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

Copyvio detector down

As mentioned at WT:NPP/R several times, Earwig's copyvio detector was down, and as of right now, ir still does not work. Does anyone have any recommendations or tools to do copyvio or plagiarism checks when reviewing GANs for the drive, especially since this copyvio detector apparently has not worked for weeks? Even adhering to WP:AGF, I always prefer to do a quick copyvio check (and here to avoid quick fails and ensure criterion 2d is satisfied).

Pinging the drive coordinators Harrias, Barkeep49, and Lee Vilenski, of course open to ideas from all. ComplexRational (talk) 19:15, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

@ComplexRational: There's Duplication Detector, but that checks two websites, not the entire article. --MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 19:23, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

So assuming good faith is always a good starting point. It's a shame the tools are down. In terms of copyright there are a couple other things that you can do manually - check images have the correct license, check quotes are actually cited and aren't excessive. Most infringements that get to this stage are likely quite subtle, so AGF is usually sufficient. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 07:15, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

That being said, close paraphrasing is a bit of an issue. Sadly, it's difficult for bots to pick up on close paraphrasing as WP:LIMITED applies. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 08:17, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

As part of source checking, which is a part of the review (at a minimum, spot-checking should always be done to make sure that the article meets verifiability), just reading the source and comparing it to the article text it's supposed to support should be sufficient to identify similarities between source and article. Picking places where one source supports an entire paragraph or section, or unusual or striking wording is used in the article and may come from a source, are two ways to look for copyvio or close paraphrasing. BlueMoonset (talk) 00:56, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

Stats

Could someone please add in day by day percent changes as well as overall percent changes to the template for stats? Noah^Talk 15:43, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

@Hurricane Noah: I've done a bit of playing, and added this in. Harrias ^talk 10:37, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

Quality check request

I have made my first-ever GA review at Talk:R. A. Hardie/GA1 and would appreciate if someone would check it. I'm not asking for a second opinion, I think that I got everything right, but I'd feel better with a little quality assurance on this. (I have four GAs on a variety of topics, have done a dozen DYK reviews and many copy-editing reviews.) Thanks! – Reidgreg (talk) 13:42, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

@Reidgreg: I've only skimmed through, but it looks a very good quality review to me. As good, or better, than most that I've seen. Harrias ^talk 14:15, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

Yes, it's an excellent review, much better than many we currently have. Keep up the good work! The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 14:46, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

I concur with Harrias and TRM; you've written a very good review. –♠Vami_IV†♠ 16:24, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

Great, thanks! I tried to be thorough with the online sources and probably went through the review four times, separating out the must-have GA requirements from the would-like extras. Will hopefully be able to do a few more reviews this month. – Reidgreg (talk) 16:32, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

A well detailed review. If you've written a few GAs, you will gain a good appreciation as to what to look for. I for one would like to say thank you for beginning to do GAN reviews, as we are always in need of more reviewers. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 14:41, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

Second opinion request

Sorry to ask again so soon, but am requesting a second opinion for my following GA review at Talk:Marie Smallface Marule/GA1. I came across a lot of close paraphrasing/copyvio which I fixed, but I couldn't access three online sources used for one statement each. Given the amount of copyvio elsewhere, I feel that it would be prudent if someone could check those three sources. Much appreciation and thanks in advance. – Reidgreg (talk) 13:10, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

@Reidgreg: I can check them over as I have access to them. --MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 17:25, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

contradiction

In the 'lede' of the page, if you will, it says as a result, points will not be rewarded nor will the reviewer be judged on how long their review is. This is to ensure a faster rate of decreasing backlog whilst maintaining quality reviews. Consequently, "quick-fails" are allowed, only if the article is in exceptionally bad shape.. However, in the guidelines, we say Minimum length/quality: Only reviews of a sufficient length will be counted; quick fails and very short reviews will generally not be given credit. As a rough guide, no review shorter than 1000 bytes will be considered, though the judges reserve the right to remove other short reviews. This is not to say that such short reviews are not worthwhile, it is merely to say that they will not be recognised in this competition. Perhaps somebody could clarify? Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 13:07, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

I think it means quickfails are allowed, as long as the review is 1000 bytes or over. --MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 22:35, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

MrLinkinPark333, yes, but above we say "points will not be rewarded nor will the reviewer be judged on how long their review is", which implies that it doesn't matter whether the review is 1000 bytes or over Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 13:43, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

Pinging Harrias and Lee Vilenski for an answer (and editing the page text to reflect that answer). Thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 01:27, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

@Eddie891: Okay, I can see how it can be read as a contradiction: I'll tidy up the language. Basically, some old drives awarded additional points for longer reviews, it was partly clarifying that wasn't the case. Let me know how the wording suits now. Harrias ^talk 06:40, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

Harrias, That reads better to me now, thanks. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 11:56, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

Awards

Two reviewers have already hit the 50-review plateau (The Rambling Man and Vami_IV), and several others are getting close (e.g., MWright96 and MarioSoulTruthFan). Although perhaps a bit of a silly suggestion, how would others feel about "rolling over" any reviews after one's 50th, and restarting the tally? For example, a reviewer with 60 reviews would receive both The Order of the Superior Scribe of Wikipedia and The Tireless Contributor Barnstar, and 132 reviews would net all 7. To the extent the barnstars help reviewers set goals and thus motivate them, this might help to maintain the momentum going into the second month of the backlog drive. (Pinging the drive's coordinators, Harrias and Lee Vilenski.) --Usernameunique (talk) 22:53, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

I'm not sure it's particularly important to have 7 barnstars. Something denoting that they did a certain number of reviews is plenty. Quite happy to talk it through, but I feel it would be a bit ridiculous. Everyone is doing a fantastic job, it's amazing to see people doing over 50 reviews in a month! Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 07:26, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

FWIW, I'm not in it for the barnstars, just want to see that backlog get down to something manageable. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 08:49, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

Yes, admittedly the idea may have been overkill. But surely, The Rambling Man, you can't seriously expect us to believe that you're "not in it for the barnstars"? I think we all know that you're really just gunning for the extra-special only-unlocked-once-you-hit-250-reviews super-duper barnstar. --Usernameunique (talk) 21:24, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

Wow, you got me. I'm not sure they could make a barnstar big enough for me right now. And what would it be made of? Dilithium? Fairy dust? Fool's gold? The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 22:28, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

I'll have what he's having, please. –♠Vami_IV†♠ 04:23, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

I believe it's not a bad idea at all, but as of right now it's fine the way it is. If the reviews stall and we get back to have a huge list...then its a different stroy. In the end, its the coordinators call. MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 00:41, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

I realise this is perhaps a little late in the day, but my experience with GAN, while limited, is extremely varied in terms of the effort requried. All these awards focus on quantity, it's very Stakhanovite :) ...just wondering would it be possible to have an award around quality? Perhaps the coordinators could identify two or three of the reviews that focus on qualitative aspects, for example, most productive review which improves the article beyond the call, best collaboration between reviewer and nominator etc. Just a thought. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 10:23, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

Just adding another thought - it could be done via co-nominations (ie the review and nominator must co-nominate), it would be limited to only one nomination from any GA reviewer/nominator and the coordinators would then judge the nominations ... or however it was felt best to judge.--Goldsztajn (talk) 10:27, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

There is merit to this idea, but the emphasis behind both this Drive and the last was very much the KISS principle. I don't have the spare resource, nor inclination, to start quality assessing reviews, and I'm sure Lee Vilenski is similar. Ultimately, the driving force behind this Drive was to see a sharp reduction in the GA backlog, and that seems to be working. While other Drives might have different focuses, particularly if we can find a way of keeping the backlog lower, I am happy with the way this one has gone so far. Harrias ^talk 13:30, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

Indeed. However, if I see good reviews whilst doing checks; I'll be sure to drop you a talk page message! I think that's a good practice in general. Quality reviews are very well appreciated. FWIW, I think everyone is doing such a fantastic job, so aside from barnstars, I think everyone deserves a big ol' slap on the back. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 13:35, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

Second opinion request regarding Google Maps

I'm requesting a second opinion for my quick fail of Talk:New York State Route 169/GA1. The primary issue is the reliability of Google Maps, which is used as the only source for more than 50% of the article's prose, and whether all of the content can be verified by this source. A summary of prior discussions regarding the reliability of this source can be found at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources. Thanks. – Reidgreg (talk) 13:02, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

@Reidgreg: Ideally, you would want it to be supplemented with a primary source if one exists. In this case, one does exist. Obtained from here: https://www.dot.ny.gov/gisapps/functional-class-maps. With that said, I don't think it warrants a quick fail; just suggest supplementing this source. --truflip99 (talk) 18:54, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

Reidgreg, the use of Google Maps has long been accepted for GA and FA class entries on roads, mainly pointing to satellite imagery and basic directions to describe what is seen from overview maps. It should be supplemented with other sources, especially to describe surroundings and terrain (topographic maps especially), but Google Maps itself is not a problematic source when used properly. SounderBruce 19:14, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for the links. I understand that Google Maps can be used for basic coordinates and distances (limited precision) and street names, but there are a lot of things it shouldn't be used for... and there's a big list of these on the review page. Interpreting satellite imagery, for example, requires specialized knowledge which makes it original research. With the majority of the article's prose essentially unsourced, I felt the quick fail was warranted. But with the hopefulness of the above comments I suppose I can give the nominator a week to try to meet the criteria. – Reidgreg (talk) 20:57, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

@Reidgreg: I've written many, many highway articles, several of which have been listed as FA and most are at least GA now. I'd say that all of them use Google Maps for sourcing. However, unlike the subject article here, Google is not used alone. In my writing, the current official state DOT paper map is used to reference the routing of the highway for the route description section, paired with the satellite view of Google Maps. The official map carries the imprimatur of the agency that owns and maintains the highway, and Google's satellite view fills in additional details about the environment. (It doesn't take any specialist knowledge to discern from the source that the highway runs through forest lands or farm lands, or that the area surrounding a roadway is residential vs. industrial.) For information that can't be determined from a map, there are other sources used, but if the maps themselves aren't an issue for an FA, they're good enough for a GA. Imzadi 1979 → 13:36, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

I disagree regarding interpretation. We're supposed to summarize reliable sources, not state what we believe something looks like. Isn't it possible that an image which appears to be one thing might be something entirely different? (Splotches of green on an image might be a wooded area but might also be a series of green rooftops and balcony gardens, shrubbery, wetlands, agriculture, or camouflage over a military camp.) Most people don't have significant experience at perceiving the world from an aerial (or orbital) perspective; that makes interpretation of such images a specialized skill. WP:OR notes Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation. and Articles may make an analytic, evaluative, interpretive, or synthetic claim only if that has been published by a reliable secondary source. I don't feel that practices by a particular group of editors can override policy in this regard. But I think we agree that Google Maps should be used cautiously as a source, and that it's preferable to have additional sources. – Reidgreg (talk) 15:06, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

I would hold that in the context of the article you're reviewing, none of that is relevant. I just read through the route description and everything stated is supported by a combination of the NYDOT and Google Maps sources. --truflip99 (talk) 19:45, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

FYI: Wikipedia:Using maps and similar sources in Wikipedia articles. Nova Crystallis (Talk) 20:57, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

I don’t think Google Maps should be used alone as a source in the route description. Usually I would use Google Maps and an additional DOT source such as an official DOT map or DOT route log as Google Maps sometimes has errors in their cartography and does not have all the details a DOT map/route log would have. I use Google Maps as a source for the physical surroundings of the route and the DOT map/route log as a source for towns and intersecting highways, along with characteristics of the road such as lane count, whether it is a divided highway, or whether it is a freeway. Dough4872 22:46, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

That essay and general RSS doctrine suggest that a map from a reliable source is only reliable for its intended purpose. I tried looking around on Google Maps for the disclaimer policy about how their site should be used, about their own claims of reliability or accuracy, but couldn't find their "warranty" which is supposed to detail this. Would be grateful if anyone can provide a link. – Reidgreg (talk) 15:07, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

All I can find on Google Maps is this - maybe one of the links from this page will help. It's mostly disclaimers about removing incorrect or offensive things, though. Kingsif (talk) 15:54, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

I found the following at Google Maps Platform Terms of Service, updated April 27, 2020, part 14(C) of Disclaimer (caps are theirs): GOOGLE MAPS CORE SERVICES ARE PROVIDED FOR PLANNING PURPOSES ONLY. INFORMATION FROM THE GOOGLE MAPS CORE SERVICES MAY DIFFER FROM ACTUAL CONDITIONS, AND MAY NOT BE SUITABLE FOR THE CUSTOMER APPLICATION. CUSTOMER MUST EXERCISE INDEPENDENT JUDGMENT WHEN USING THE SERVICES. – Reidgreg (talk) 14:52, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

I've never experienced issues with people using Google maps, previously, but why don't we treat it the same as a primary source? It's fine to source non-contentious facts, such as where something is, how big it is etc. But we shouldn't be using it to make descriptive prose. In this case, if most of the sources are Google maps, one has to wonder if the information being sourced is pertinent, or if they simply haven't searched for long enough to find a suitable secondary source. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 15:06, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

Explanation

@Lee Vilenski: and @Harrias:: I really apologize for not being able to participate. If you have seen my user page, I tested positive for the coronavirus and I am still showing symptoms after 5 weeks. This alongside with work being really affected has caused a stressful situation. I really want to participate and if I am in a better situation I will join sometime in May. I hope you understand my situation and know that I am proud of this drive and want to contribute. See you soon. AmericanAir88^(talk) 17:44, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

Do not in the slightest bit feel guilty! Get better, rest up, and we'll see you on the other side! Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 17:53, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

Future drives

The progress seems to have stalled after the first month. In the future, should we focus on having more drives of shorter duration (only one month)? buidhe 19:16, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

Yes, I agree. Although that said, even keeping the levels steady is an achievement; but yes. I wonder about the idea of rolling quarterly drives: one month of drive, then a two-month break, then another drive, and so on. Enough of a break to keep people fresh, but also possibly a more regular stream of reviews. Harrias ^talk 19:41, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

Part of the problem was that I was doing about five a day until I remembered how much I like creating content... The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 21:13, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

I think that if anything, this drive has taught us not to plan too far into the future, and do it when it seems right! Maybe 2 months is too long, but there has still been quite a lot of reviews this month. I'm very positive about future drives when the number of nominations, and the motivation is both high! Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 22:37, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

End of drive

I've made the final update to graph and table on the main drive page, and changed the banner at WP:GAN to note that the drive has ended and thanking participants. The number of extant nominations dropped as low as 340 on May 27, the lowest level since July 2016, and ended at 357. There were 119 nominations under review and 238 unreviewed nominations at the end; the number of unreviewed nominations dipped as low as 203 on April 29, the lowest level since March 2014. The oldest nomination is now four and a half months old (as opposed to ten months when we started on April 1); the next nine range from three and a half to four months old (eight to nine and a half), and the next ten are only two to three months old. Only 144 nominations are 30 days or older (as opposed to 471 on April 1), meaning that over 213 nominations were added after May 1 and have still not been passed or failed; the actual number is actually significantly higher given how many articles were nominated and closed in May. Congratulations and thanks to everyone who participated; the backlog decreased from 692 to 357, a drop of 335—and only a few days ago was down by more than half. BlueMoonset (talk) 01:19, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

BlueMoonset, even though this drive is over, I am aware that no newly reviewed articles will be added next to participants but it is correct to update any articles there that have since been passed by me? --Kyle Peake (talk) 07:10, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Yes, any reviews currently "on hold" can be updated to a pass or fail, but no new reviews should be added. Harrias ^talk 08:08, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

 Done --Kyle Peake (talk) 10:26, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Teamwork Barnstar

		The Teamwork Barnstar
		Awarded jointly and severally to Harrias and Lee Vilenski for coordinating, to BlueMoonset for support, to MrLinkinPark333, The Rambling Man and Vami IV for answering questions on the talk page, and to everyone else who made the spring 2020 GAN backlog drive a welcoming and enjoyable event. Reidgreg (talk) 15:21, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

@Reidgreg: Thank you! Wasn't expecting that :) Can I put this on my userpage? --MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 20:41, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

Thank you. –♠Vami_IV†♠ 08:27, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

@MrLinkinPark333: Sure, you can copy this to your userspace. I feel that this event gave me a good combination of support and motivation to conduct my first GA reviews, and wanted to give my thanks. – Reidgreg (talk) 13:44, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

Amazing job by the organisers and major participants! I've been really impressed by how much the backlog has gone down over the past two months. — Bilorv (Black Lives Matter) 21:24, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

Barnstars

Were the barnstars for the drive ever given out? Can we claim them ourselves if we met the right threshold? — Bilorv (talk) 13:41, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

• Bilorv, The coordinators have been checking the reviews, and it looks like they just finished a couple of days ago. I'm sure they will be awarded shortly. Best wishes, Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 13:54, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

• Oh I see, I had forgotten about that part of the process, but I can understand that's quite a big job. I'm in no hurry if it's a work in progress; just wondered if it had been forgotten. — Bilorv (talk) 14:49, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

• Bilorv Yeah, it's been my bad, dropped the ball on it a bit. As Eddie891 says, I finished going through the reviews a couple of days ago, and should get the barnstars out in the next day or two. Harrias ^talk 19:05, 10 July 2020 (UTC)