Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Articles for creation/July 2013 Backlog Elimination Drive

Leaderboard

When will the leaderboard be updated? APerson241 (talk!) 02:32, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

APerson241, Generally Excirial updates the leaderboard. So maybe if he updates the leaderboard, the leaderboard will be updated too.--Pratyya ^(Hello!) 13:51, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

"So maybe if he updates the leaderboard, the leaderboard will be updated too." What does that mean?? ☯ Bonkers The Clown \(^_^)/ Nonsensical Babble ☯ 13:53, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

LOL. Pratyya, I thought I just complimented you the other day?! :P --Arctic Kangaroo (✉ • ✎) 14:23, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Bonkers The Clown, Usually Excirial updates the leaderborad. I saw it. That's why I said like this. Cause at the last backlog Excirial just updated two times. The leaderboard were updated two times. So.......--Pratyya ^(Hello!) 11:14, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

Erm.... I think you need some brushing up on your English skills. Can't be helped though. Don't take that too seriously, you're still a great person. ☯ Bonkers The Clown \(^_^)/ Nonsensical Babble ☯ 11:16, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

If I were to update the leaderboard manually, would that screw anything up for Excirial or his bot? APerson241 (talk!) 13:13, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

@Pratyya: Yeah, I was just joking. Only Pratyya will know what and where that compliment is, so no need to wonder. :P ✉→Arctic Kangaroo←✎ 13:38, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

@APerson, no, but his bot will just overwrite your work. ☯ Bonkers The Clown \(^_^)/ Nonsensical Babble ☯ 13:43, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

Six days in and still no scores - what does it take to start up the bot? Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 07:56, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

Totals are up. Also fyi: Quick update for the July AFC backlog drive. Unfortunately running AFCBuddy wasn't as simple as just running an executable . Excirial ^{(Contact me,Contribs)} 15:39, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks! Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 15:44, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

Can we please have more frequent score updates - once a day would be great. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 18:09, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

@Dodger67: Ehm, The scoreboard and user-totals are already updated daily, and have been updated daily since July 6th? Excirial ^{(Contact me,Contribs)} 18:30, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Oops! Clearing one's browser cache is another thing that should be done daily! Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 09:55, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Nothing to review!

I can't believe that every single one of the writers and submitters of junk, jokes, hoaxes, nonsense, spam, blank pages, and those who simply don't grok what a reference is, are all asleep! Only seven days into the drive and I'm bored.......... bored.......... bored.......... Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 11:17, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

I see the drive does have a purpose after all :) ☯ Bonkers The Clown \(^_^)/ Nonsensical Babble ☯ 11:18, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

If I create and submit a hundred pages of crap and immediately decline them - will I still get the brownie points for the reviews? :P Or I could just take a nap? -- Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 11:25, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

You can't decline your own crap... But I can! :P Yea, go sleep for a few weeks and there will be lots waiting for you. ☯ Bonkers The Clown \(^_^)/ Nonsensical Babble ☯ 11:31, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

For that same reason i wrote a small application that lists the contents of the AFC backlog and auto-refreshes that every 30 seconds. Doing other work while having it float about on a second screen works like a charm ;). Excirial ^{(Contact me,Contribs)} 11:44, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Y u no share! : ( ☯ Bonkers The Clown \(^_^)/ Nonsensical Babble ☯ 11:49, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

There are only two types of Backlog participants - The Quick and The Dead! LOL! Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 11:56, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Yup, I thank my fast fingers... ☯ Bonkers The Clown \(^_^)/ Nonsensical Babble ☯ 12:03, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Because all your AFC backlog entries are belong to me :P. But seriously, if anyone wants to give that 20 line-o-code thing a whirl, here it is: Link. As long as you have .net framework 4.0 installed it should work just fine. As for using it: Double-clicking any entry in the list will load it in your default browser (It uses the https:// variant by default though). The checkboxes at the bottom of the screen will set the refresh rate to 30, 15 and 5 seconds respectively. Excirial ^{(Contact me,Contribs)} 12:18, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Thank you! ☯ Bonkers The Clown \(^_^)/ Nonsensical Babble ☯ 13:50, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

When me and Bonkers (the 2 SG dudes at the top of the table) go to school, you guys can go play already. :P Too bad, there's a school holiday tomorrow. ✉→Arctic Kangaroo←✎ 14:47, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

You have to sleep... <evil grin!> Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 14:57, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Clarification: Tomorrow in the sense of 8 July at the time of posting. And oh, talking about 8 July, it's a special day for me (in a bad way). ✉→Arctic Kangaroo←✎ 15:10, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

If you guys want something to do, hack onto the review script. You could really help us devs! --Nathan2055^{talk - contribs} 18:59, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

I'm afraid for me Scriptese is indistinguishable from Gobbledygook. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 11:40, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

@Dodger67 Then try to rescue some old drafts which might get deleted through G13! mabdul 11:46, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Nrhp-Zorro was here!

I tried to help by starting a bunch of NRHP articles requiring reviews, but youse guys chewed through them too fast. Thanks, all of you, anyhow, for helping form a Zorro-like backwards "N" swath of "fully-articled" U.S. counties running through all states in the western half of the lower 48. :) Highly worthwhile! --doncram 17:59, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Article under review

Twice this evening I have placed a blue "Article under review" box on an article, then started reviewing it, only to have someone else decline it. Is something not working right? I would hate to think that any of the reviewers are ignoring the blue box and wasting my time deliberately, so there must be something non-functional about the "Article under review" process. Can any one enlighten me? —Anne Delong (talk) 04:45, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

For this, I declined it before it was replaced with the "Under review" tag, so of course I declined it yet again. ✉→Arctic Kangaroo←✎ 04:50, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Well, it looks like there is something wrong with the process - the "Under review" shouldn't have worked if the article had already been declined in the few seconds between when I loaded it and when I pressed the "Under review". I guess I'll go back to rescuing old articles and throwing them in here for you guys. —Anne Delong (talk) 04:59, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

I noticed an instance yesterday when the 'clean-up' bot removed my 'R'. Luckily I spotted it and re-added it (because I don't like my time being wasted either). Sionk (talk) 06:31, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

From what I've seen, placing an article under review doesn't stop others from reviewing the article. It merely keeps the article from being listed under Pending Submissions. If a reviewer got the Pending Submissions page before you put an article under review, they can still visit it and review it. Ideally, if someone sees the under review, they should skip the article. Generally, it isn't a problem, but now, with so few articles in Pending, seem to get this happening a lot. For me, until the past few days, it only happened once. Now, its happening several times. LionMans Account (talk) 04:00, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

'Cos everybody's (including me) being kiasu now. ✉→Arctic Kangaroo←✎ 07:14, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Reviewing reviews

Well, since not very many reviewers are reviewing the reviews, I decided to take part in this, but I am confused. the instructions say to place the pass or fail beside the diffs, but people seem to be creating a new list at the bottom and putting the comments there. I am confused. Do we move the item to the new section, or do we copy it? What will happen when Excirial's AfcBuddy rewrites the page? I haven't done this before and I don't want to cause any format problems. —Anne Delong (talk) 13:42, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

@Anne Delong: The section that lists the reviewed reviews is actually generated by AFCBuddy - it will move any reviews it detects to that separate section. You can add reviews directly to that section, but it may be more convenient to list them after the original diff as mentioned in the instructions. What's more important: Make sure you mark a review correctly, with correctly being "- Pass(or)Fail --". AFCBuddy can detect some variations of this format, but not everything. Excirial ^{(Contact me,Contribs)} 14:08, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks - that clears it up. —Anne Delong (talk) 14:12, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Okay, I did a couple here Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/July 2013 Backlog Elimination Drive/Jguy. Is that the right format? —Anne Delong (talk) 16:04, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

The AfC Drive template at the top

I added a copy of the AfC drive template at the top so I can get to the backlog page more easily. I hope nobody minds. (If you think it looks ugly, you can remove it.) APerson (talk!) 01:19, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

Increasingly frivolous multiple decline reasons

I've got to say, I've never seen so many articles repeatedly declined because of their wording, either using the 'essay' or 'advert' reason! Often the problem is minimal, or easily fixed by an editor. There are also regular declines because of lack of inline citations. Perchance is this the result of gaming the system to get multiple reviews of articles, rather than accept them and put in the basic work to clean and fix them?? Some of the leaders of the leader board seem to be the prime culprits. After all, we're here to screen out the poorest articles, rather than prevent articles being accepted until they're perfect.

Just a rant really. I doubt there's much that can be done (though more reviews of reviews might help drop the hint). Sionk (talk) 19:52, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

• I didn't realise there was a backlog drive on (been busy writing a few GAs elsewhere) but after complaints on the help desk and seeing AfC submissions turn up at AfD, I think I need to be a bit more pro-active in reviewing. I would also like to propose a ban on Bonkers and Arctic reviewing each others submissions. Now, if you're all bored, go and take an article to FAC. Rant off. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 00:35, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
  • What's wrong with me reviewing AK's submissions and vice versa?? ☯ Bonkers The Clown \(^_^)/ Nonsensical Babble ☯ 09:40, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Some things are hard to fix on our own, and Ritchie, you are being a little too picky/fussy with our reasons for declining the submissions. ✉→Arctic Kangaroo←✎ 09:49, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

I guess I'm just a bit concerned the two of you have got too close a common set of interests and ideals and might miss out on things outside your area of expertise. As you have probably have seen from recent conversations elsewhere, AfC has recently come in for strong criticism from other editors who are concerned about its effectiveness, particularly that there seems to be no consistency for reviews. Therefore we need to make very sure we get things right - one or two things are okay (we all make mistakes) but if you pass an AfC submission that gets deleted via AfD, that's not good. Don't forget that any failed re-reviews require a third opinion. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 10:04, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

We both are Singaporeans, but since when did we mention we have a common set of interests? I don't even know Bonker's interest(s). ✉→Arctic Kangaroo←✎ 10:09, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Let me give you a recent example of what I'm talking about and how I think you can improve - Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Mike Feerick. The article cites The New York Times in multiple places, and has several other news sources - not every source has particularly substantial coverage of Feerick, but there's a possibility of being enough coverage for him to pass WP:GNG if I searched for sources more carefully. But, in the time it takes me to do that, the pair of you have declined the submission for "being written like an advert" (if an article has multiple cites to the NYT, it probably isn't!) and, most worryingly, you haven't given any word of help to the submitter, you've just bashed them over the head with canned phrases. In this situation, I would mention which sources are good sources, mention that the article might be close to passing, and suggest to the reviewer what else he might want to look for and include. Instead, he's shooting in the dark because you're just hitting the "Decline" button without helping him. That's not good. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 10:16, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Reading like an advertisement was my reason, not sources. But now, I have decided to let it go. I quite sympathise with the author (rare one as I hardly sympathise), and after thinking about it as well, I don't think there is anything he can do about it, if he were to keep those information (those info are OK). ✉→Arctic Kangaroo←✎ 10:26, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Also, refer to the message he wrote on my talk page. ✉→Arctic Kangaroo←✎ 10:27, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

You're lucky he wrote something on your talk page. In his shoes, having had a submission declined at AfC seven times in quick succession for no obvious reason, I might have thought Wikipedia wasn't worth the bother and wandered off to do something else. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 10:37, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

It's about commitment and determination. ✉→Arctic Kangaroo←✎ 10:46, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Balderdash. Wikipedia is a voluntary project. Nobody is required to contribute any more than they want to, and I find editors belittling others because they are not as "committed" and "determined" to be reprehensible. I think we're done here. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 11:35, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

regular declines because of lack of inline citations. So it is listed as a reason to decline a submission, but it isn't a reason to decline a submission? For an article without any controversial statements, or things that might be considered controversial, inline citations are not necessarily required. But for specific statements they should be supported by an inline citation. It isn't a reviewer's job to figure out which of several listed references might support the particular statement. I tend to use it when it appears that based on the information in the article they could establish notability, they just need to support the statements with citations.The Ukulele Guy - Aggie80 (talk) 21:35, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure why that "doesn't meet the standard for inline cites" decline reason is in the script to be honest, as it's quite confusing and easy to get wrong. The relevant area of the Manual of Style is WP:MINREF, but that's mainly concerned with verifiability, not notability, and if the article's subject is generally verifiable as being notable, but specific bits violate the inline citation policy, you should fix it by tagging those with {{cn}}, not by declining the article. The only case where you have to inline cite everything is a negative BLP, but failing WP:BLP is a reason to decline an article anyway. I would furthermore point out that the use of {{cite web}} and {{cite news}} is not required, even for a good article, which merely requires consistency in reference formatting. I think you have to go all the way up to featured article candidates where the type of citation and reference formatting starts to become mandatory. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 10:02, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

Time to close this drive?

The above topic is symptomatic of the problems this drive is now causing - we haven't actually had a backlog for quite some time and now we have a few reviewers all "competing" to review the submissions as they "trickle" into the pending list. The competitive factor also seems to me to be negatively affecting the quality of the reviews - Earlier today I witnessed (in astonishment) one of the participating reviewers race through about thirty submissions in less than 15 minutes. The good spirit and friendly banter that characterised the start of this drive (see #Nothing to review!) has turned into unhealthy competition. Thus I propose that this drive should be closed as soon as possible and that future drives should automatically close as soon as the pending list is emptied for the first time - which in this drive happened on the 7th day. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 11:48, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

• Support - I will also be happy, however, to suspend the drive for a week or so, let the backlog build back up, then restart it. Mdann52 (talk) 12:17, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose - Do you really want for there to be another backlog? Let's keep this up for all of July, so we can be sure that the backlog doesn't come back. buffbills7701 12:23, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Comment How will ending or suspending this drive at a stage when there is no backlog have any effect on future backlogs? New submissions appear at a more-or-less constant rate so one backlog drive cannot prevent a backlog building up after the drive ends, regardless of when it ends - we can't review submissions that don't exist yet. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 14:12, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
  • IT due to certain users we are having this discussion - maybe they should just step aside for the time being, and contribute to other parts of the site. Mdann52 (talk) 13:53, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose - Just because we've been busy clearing the backlog, doesn't mean that all the reviews in it are perfect. There's plenty of work required to check through a significant enough portion of them. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 13:57, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

• Comment - I'm trying my best to review all the reviews well, even though it is a backlog drive. I'm already fed up my those crap about us "not doing our job properly" as well as "unhealthy competition". Yeah of course, we are competing, but ultimately, we still do our best in the reviews. ✉→Arctic Kangaroo←✎ 14:15, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
• Support - The caliber of the reviews by some of the... "more active" reviewers suggests that they have succumbed to a "quantity over quality" mindset. Keri (talk) 18:29, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
• Support - it's becoming a little bit ridiculous, I agree. People need to slow down a tiny bit and raise the quality. The drive has done an excellent job at reducing a large backlog in less than a fortnight, well done! You've also reeled me back in after a couple of months away. I managed to momentarily get into the 'Top 10', so I can die happy ;) Sionk (talk) 19:27, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
  • I'd just like to add I've no grudge against any of the new reviewers - after all, these backlog drives are designed to encourage new participants. The enthusiasm should be welcomed and any errors pointed out, with view to education, improvement and continued participation in the future. Sionk (talk) 21:56, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
  • I tried, and was at one point at #6, but I'm out by a few reviews. It's my small claim to fame. Maybe next time I won't be so on-and-off. (I'm afraid pursuit of romance and love reigns over my Wikiwork. Sorry. Not that I don't all love you.) theonesean 04:29, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
• Support - Don't really care, just registered with the event to learn a bit more about the whole process more than anything else. It's pretty easy to wipe out a dozen or so submissions in a few minutes when they have no references. I've learned that there is evidently a priority on what reason is used based on some of the fails I've been awarded, included the fact that I used one of the listed reasons and was told it isn't a valid reason(?). It would appear that being able to select multiple reasons would be beneficial to the submitter. Rather than fixing things one at a time as they re-submit. Another idea might be to limit the ability to re-submit for a period of say 24 hours. We've had some submissions rejected three times in a few minutes by three different reviewers. I've actually been doing some reviews of the reviews, more out of shear boredom than anything else. The Ukulele Guy - Aggie80 (talk) 21:14, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose - I think it's great that so many new editors are having their articles reviewed promptly. I would like to see a way to have this happening all of the time. Maybe instead of a time limit on a drive there should be a reward for each 100 points, with one point for a review that passes a re-review, with 2 points off for a failed review, and a point to the re-reviewer for each two reviews re-reviewed. Then no one would be in a hurry to grab reviews, but still motivated to participate. The tallying could be cut down to once every week or two, since there'd be less urgency. Sorry, I am digressing... —Anne Delong (talk) 21:39, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
• Support but... - I support the closing of this drive. Definitely. Also, there should be (if there's not already) a link to this thread on the main talk page. I don't know about any of yinz, but I don't check this page that often. However, I disagree that all future BLDs (note to self: use this acronym more) should be closed after it hits 0. There was an (understandable) rush to eliminate all the submissions during the first few days, but the quality slipped. That's not something that can be easily controlled by direct means, save blocking or banning reviewers who speed up too much. (That's basically all of us, perhaps excepting Anne Delong (talk · contribs), who has been wonderful in her reviews and her responses to talk page inquiries by newbies. I love you, Anne. (Kidding. (Kind of. ))) But, what I was saying before I interrupted myself, the quality sometimes slips and that leads to a fairly large proportion of the reviews getting resubmitted quickly. So, instead of right after it hits 0, I propose that we close the backlog drive one week after CAT:PEND hits 0, if it indeed hits 0 before the end of the drive, or perhaps a week before the end of the drive. TL;DR: Support closing this drive. In future ones, grace period should be allowed for resubmits due to low quality reviews. Thanks, and I love you all, theonesean 04:29, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Hmmph! Don't think I will go easy on reviewing your reviews, Sean (Kidding. (Kind of. ))). I would like to say that I have seen a lot of good reviews while re-reviewing, and I think this drive has helped everyone improve their reviewing skills because of all of the discussion. I'd like to point out that if anyone, in retrospect, thinks they may have rushed a few of their early reviews, it's not too late to look them up on your own drive page and add a helpful message on the user's talk page. Also, remember that there's lots of re-reviewing to be done, and some points to be earned there. I've been doing some, and I find it tricky because I keep coming across articles that I decided not to review myself because I wasn't sure. —Anne Delong (talk) 05:27, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

I like doing the re-reviews, and go looking for ones that I wasn't sure about. If the other reviewer, particularly one who was more seasoned then I, did what I was considering doing, I know that my thought process was valid. If they didn't, I learned a bit more about what to look for or consider in future reviews.The Ukulele Guy - Aggie80 (talk) 14:31, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

• Support - Maybe we could take just a few days off, to let the backlog build up to a point where everyone won't fall over themselves trying to review ALL the articles (however, that point might not even exist...) APerson (talk!) 03:06, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose, as the backlog appears to be coming back.
• Oppose- Cause the users who submit there articles gets the chance to make there article perfect as an article is reviewed for 2-6 times.--Pratyya ^(Hello!) 06:54, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

Congrats but

I'm just going to go on the record here and say that there were some good things about this drive, and some not-so-good. I hope that lessons have been learned. Congrats to reviewers who win if they declined submissions for good reasons. But-I think that in light of certain problems that were revealed to be occurring, I do not think that certain editors who are currently banned from this project, should receive any awards for what they have done here. That editor is currently in the top 3 , and I think that their work should not be rewarded.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive805#WP:COMPETENCE_problem_with_Arctic_Kangaroo_on_AfCHousewifehader (talk) 21:11, 31 July 2013 (UTC)Housewifehader (talk) 21:24, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Now is the time to concentrate on reviewing the reviews. Editors will not receive a point for any review that two other editors agree is incorrect. This will reduce everyone's score somewhat, but editors who took care with their reviews should lose fewer points. By the way, the banner at the top of the page says that the drive ended in April.... —Anne Delong (talk) 00:23, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Thank-you for explaining that. It does make a difference.Housewifehader (talk) 02:41, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

I think the barnstars should not be awarded. Even if you deducted the tens of failed meta-reviews I did on Arctic Kangaroo submissions, he would still come third, and awarding an AfC related barnstar to someone who is topic banned from it just doesn't make sense. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 13:52, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

A precedent for that was set during a previous drive where a similar situation occurred - though i hasten to add that the excluded reviewer seems to do a fine job these days. Even so, there should be a Fail-to-good ratio threshold one must meet in order to be eligible for any award. Reviewing a lot of articles is only helpful when the reviews themselves are decent, otherwise they are only damaging.

Having said that, i agree with Demiurge's comment below - there was no quality threshold in the drives rules this time around so we shouldn't switch the rules during the game. I know that i personally made plenty of mistakes when i first started CSD patrol. Several editors did a great job explaining these mistakes to me, so that i would not make them again. 800+ reviews still take a lot of time and dedication - and in my eyes that dedication should be rewarded irregardless of any issues. Excirial ^{(Contact me,Contribs)} 22:33, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Deduct the deductions by the rules you have for the drive, and then award him what's left. Doing so will help you to see what may have been wrong with the rules. Not doing so is obviously and clearly petty. The block or ban (or whatever) is to prevent damage to the encyclopedia, not as a punishment. If this drive was not done right, then do the next one better. Punishing the people who worked hard at it (but badly) does not achieve anything.

Oh, it does achieve one thing. It means that people who might consider working hard at it next time, but have no idea how "badly" random strangers might randomly judge their contributions... just won't bother.

What percentage of AK's reviews have been reviewed, by the way? --Demiurge1000 (talk) 22:16, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

• AK's review page is here. Feel free to help go over the reviews and check they are correct. We're trying to fix the inherent problem with inexperienced AfC reviewers via the RfC, so if you want change, that's the place to campaign for it. In the meantime, we've come down like a ton of bricks on new AfC reviewers, which helps keep the quality threshold up, but doesn't make for a nice collegial environment. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 09:16, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

It wouldn't be very nice if I still deserve the award but don't get it. BTW, the topic ban was enforced long after I abstained myself. Ritchie, you are welcome to review. I will take a look at the reviews when I'm free. ✉→Arctic Kangaroo←✎ 14:25, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

I agree that the reviews by Arctic Kangaroo were done while he was not banned, in good faith. I also noticed that his reviews were getting better near the end after other editors were mentioning problems. —Anne Delong (talk) 08:42, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

I thought I was going to get the Golden Wiki award...only to find out that Arctic Kangaroo got blocked! I'm really shocked at what I just heard. I'm quite disappointed because I did everything...for nothing! I do feel sorry about the issues with Arctic Kangaroo. I have to be honest here - I did some mistakes, but similar to AK, I'm quite actually new here at AfC, with the fact that last month was only my first month reviewing submissions! I already read about if the barnstars should be awarded...are we still going to despite AK's block on Wikipedia? --みんな空の下 (トーク) 18:14, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Leaderboard is out of date.

It was last updated on 25 July, so the totals shown are not the real final count. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 18:15, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

The totals have been updated now. To be frank i intentionally didn't update them during the last AFC week, to prevent any last minute attempts to reach a certain barn star or leaderboard position. Most times that seems to result in low quality whack-a-mole style reviews. Excirial ^{(Contact me,Contribs)} 22:33, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Re-Reviewers must be competent

I have just posted two objections to incorrecly failed reviews on my log - The re-reviewer doesn't know that lack of inline cites in BLPs is a valid decline reason. Re-Reviewers need to very sure they follow all the criteria properly. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 18:19, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

According to the re-reviewing instructions, a third reviewer should now look at these Fails and this should sort it out. —Anne Delong (talk) 00:13, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

Another purpose for re-reviews

Dear reviewers: I feel that these re-reviews are valuable. There were several reviewers that were rushing a little, and looking back to see if the users received enough help is a good idea. Has anyone looked at the ones done by User:Techatology? He/she is no longer on the drive page, so I'm not sure how to check. Also, I hope that people will try to re-review some of everyone's, because even a careful reviewer could make an error through misunderstanding one of the policies - I know I seem to come across something almost every day that I didn't know. Also, I have begun looking back over my own reviews to see what has happened to the articles since I reviewed them, and if the editors look like they are stuck. —Anne Delong (talk) 08:52, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

Considering he's banned now, I wouldn't worry about his reviews, IMHO. LionMans Account (talk) 02:29, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

I wasn't worried about his reviews from the point of the backlog drive. I was thinking of the submitters. There is no one to check to see if some were incorrectly declined and may need help. I have already come across an acceptance that's nominated for deletion. Some of the submission were moved into the wrong space, such as Wikipedia:Articles for creation/User:Bobdavisnpf/sandbox and Wikipedia:Articles for creation/Max Yong.

Wrap-up

So, does anyone have an estimate of when the drive will be wrapped up (i.e. the reviews are mostly re-reviewed and the barnstars will be distributed)? If not, I would be happy to help with one or both of those tasks. APerson (talk!) 18:57, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

I'm sure that I read a message in which another editor had offered to figure out and present the awards later this month, but now I don't remember who it was or where I read it. —Anne Delong (talk) 05:15, 15 August 2013 (UTC)