The 2012 June–July GAN Review Round was a month-long effort (originally organized by the GAN WikiProject and other users) 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 to read the essays What the Good article criteria are not and Reviewing good articles. This drive was under the purview of the following coordinators: Wizardman and Hahc21. If you have questions, leave a message on the drive's talk page. This drive began on 15 June 2012 00:00 UTC and ended on 15 July 2012 on 23:59 UTC.
The goal of this backlog elimination drive was to bring the number of outstanding Good Article nominations to below 200 (about half of what it is currently), and it was expected that all nominees from January until March would be reviewed. Awards will be given out to those individuals who do the most work in helping reduce the size of the backlog.
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. 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.
The 2012 June-July GAN Review Round drive welcomes and encourages those who have not yet tried their hand at GA reviewing, or those who haven't done so in some time, to join the drive, even if only to review one or two. If you feel like wanting someone to check over your review and making sure that it's good, the drive coordinators will gladly assist.
To receive an award, please include your name and the number of reviews you have completed as part of this drive. Please keep a running total next to your name. Awards will be given by the co-ordinator after this drive ends.
In addition, the person who reviews the most Good Article nominations during the backlog elimination drive will receive the Content Review Medal of Merit. (Unfortunately, because of financial problems, we are not able to give away automobiles at this time.)
And remember, the ultimate winner here is Wikipedia.
Only pass/fail will be recognized as completing a review. If necessary, you can put the article on hold if the article needs to be edited further to be passed. Once you have passed or failed the article after putting it on hold, include your review below. Quick-fails will not be counted. Article reviews started after June 15 but completed after July 15 are eligible to be counted into the running total. Reviews started before June 15 do not count. Please state if the article is a pass, fail, or on hold. Make sure you follow up on holds.
The one I x'd I considered a quick-fail, which don't count in the rankings. After reading it myself it still could have been failed, I just would like to have seen more detail in your reasoning, namely what you meant by adding in more physics stuff. WizardmanOperation Big Bear14:48, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Although, you many think I am trying to defend myself, I am not. See, if the nominator didn't respond there's no use and about the quick-fail thing, I always avoid it (under whatever circumstances) because I have been mass-criticized (by 2-3 users) about it. Even, though those articles had met those qualifications. Please note, however much you tell me, I am not gonna quick-fail a single review (I pledge to do so). --Ankit MaityTalkContribs12:09, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Tito Dutta✉ I am adding my name. Though I don't think I'll perform well, since I have a bad habit of doing long long reviews. So, sometimes takes lots of time to complete a review! I am doing Talk:Barack Obama on Twitter/GA1 and Talk:Delhi/GA1. I hope to do one or two more reviews (if time permits) in next 29 days!
Dom497 (talk) - I just want to let everyone know that I don't usually pick articles that look like they will fail. I don't know why I don't review them, I just tend to like reviewing articles that are likely to pass.
Hahc21 (talk·contribs) will chair this group. The committee will inspect articles at random for quality control purposes. If you are interested in participating, please sign up below.
At least 80% of a participant's reviews should be inspected. Please choose articles at random, and do not inspect articles you have reviewed yourself. After checking an article, place a {{checked}} mark after the article on the listing and sign your username as this: — {{small|~~~}}. If a rough consensus finds a that review is not of an acceptable standard, the tag will be re-added and the editor will be assessed a penalty of -1 points. The reviewer may also give advice on how the review could have been better, without penalizing the editor.
