495:
158:' implies that only a set number of people can be recognized per month. I'd personally like to see it where if you get, say 10 votes in favor, you're given the award rather than having to compete. It also avoids the issue of what happens if no reviews are of decent quality. I'm more than okay opening a dedicated tab on the tab header for the review recognition page, and would prefer to have it out in the open since we historically have a problem of burying things in redirects. ๐ต๏ธ
504:
486:
522:
513:
540:
279:
I like the idea of having a threshold of x votes for a review to qualify as a quality review. Not sure how we would set a bar, though. If loads of people participate in voting, 10 could be quite a low threshold. Maybe instead it could be something like x% of all votes casted that month? Additionally,
214:
I started with two per month as an arbitrary cutoff (better than one sole "review of the month") but yes that's part of why I wanted to open it for feedback. There's no issue of scarcity but when there isn't a common period, I can see it becoming a popularity contest/vote, subject to the whims of who
255:
Good question on what should constitute an exceptional review. I donโt want to over-prescribe or over-complicate things so it should probably be down to the nominator of the exceptional review to give a reason. Then, people can judge whether the reason is sufficient by voting or not voting. To give
79:
On timing, I wanted to give a cutoff point and an end point for a comparative period, so I figured that the 14-day period at the turn of the month is the easiest way to do that, with late nominees held to the next period. I don't think there's any issue with people supporting noms early (before the
232:
I also think overall approval is preferable to monthly. Say we take the top two each month, and then there are three great reviews in
January but only one in February. A great one in January would be lost, while a sub-par one in February would be awarded. We'd also need to determine what actually
43:
Pulling from the proposal drive discussion, we have some options so I wanted to open a workshop. I started with a few basic ideas: (a) That this shouldn't be any more complicated than need be, (b) That we're looking to select and encourage exceptional reviews with a community affirmation process
332:
to make it happen, and advertise for feedback; for this to work, someone has to take the lead. I wonder if monthly is overkill, and quarterly may be better. Also, FASA has a designated person (FAR Coords) to close the noms and send the rewards, not sure how this would work without that.
423:
AfD and ITN are by consensus, so editors side for or against and someone closes the discussion on behalf of the group's judgment, whereas acclamation is more like a voice vote, where those in favor say aye and the one with the most support is chosen (see FASA and
Milhist examples above).
459:
Why not keep the competitive aspect, but disqualify past winners? This ensures a varied number of entries is steadily collected. I don't think that such a disqualification could be gamed, although it could be time-limited. An issue may emerge if it ends up disqualifying everyone though.
362:
yes, I'd be willing to volunteer to make it work. One possibility for GASA is that a single uninvolved editor could decide on the award, mirroring GAN which is a single-reviewer process. I like the monthly/quarterly round-up suggested here as well, might make things easier.
537:, you had mentioned repurposing an icon you had used previously. I like the fuchsia motif but was considering how to distinguish a โreviewโ award from a regular/unadorned article award. One thought was to add some kind of overlay atop the icon (ร la
256:
examples of what types of reviews I was thinking of: maybe ones where the reviewer has helped the nominator turn around what might have otherwise been a fail, or a thorough review of an article which has had a turbulent history.
44:(rather than a unilateral barnstar, which any editor can send), (c) That we we need no set criteria/benchmark as long as we have a common comparative period. I wrote out the following based on what I had in mind, for discussion:
280:
presumably there would have to be an expiry date for each review. For example: a review is nominated on 1 January, other editors can vote for it until 1 February, if it receives x votes then it qualifies as a quality review.
69:
182:
That's a good point. It does seem that adding a competitive bent to this might cause some issues. Conversely, a competitive edge might also encourage participants to produce good reviews so that they can be
76:-style vote by acclamation during a common nomination period. A rolling 30-day nomination period would be easier to maintain, but we'd have no reference point without multiple noms in comparison.
656:
This could reduce the overhead that stalled out the earlier proposal, and fit more neatly into many editors' existing workflows (templating articles, "wikilove" templates on user talk pages).
409:
Just one more question: so, the voting process by acclamation should be similar in concept to a process like, for example, an AfD discussion or an In The News candidate review, right?
48:(1) Anyone may nominate a review for consideration (including peer, GA, FA, and talk page reviews) with a concise rationale for what distinguishes the review from the norm. Please use
557:
It definitely needs some sort of overlay or other distinguishing mark. Like I said in the proposal drive, it can't just be a color shift, because we need color-blind accessibility.
64:. All may comment but only support votes by registered users in good standing are tallied. After the 7th day (UTC) of the new month, the top nominees are recognized.
22:
73:
233:
constitutes an exceptional review. Is it one that thoroughly checks for all of the good article criteria? Because that should be most if not all reviews.
200:
As long as there are no problems with "review farming" (although that might be pretty difficult, given the standard required), I support this point, too.
761:
This is a neat idea. Would there be any risk of it being spammed/abused? And if so, how might we head that off at the pass?--
589:
290:
266:
567:
243:
604:
465:
368:
80:
comparative period) as long as there is a common consideration phase (minimum of 14 days) and an end date.
388:
343:
645:
Perhaps a bot that randomly selects one noted article from the past month/quarter to highlight either on
679:
581:
282:
258:
86:
747:
I'm not sure about the third option, but all of the other ones look nice, and especially the first.
683:
636:
558:
234:
791:
768:
752:
446:
414:
205:
190:
494:
695:
687:
461:
364:
321:
168:
114:
503:
719:
646:
379:
357:
334:
118:
731:
663:
795:
773:
756:
735:
667:
618:
595:
574:
551:
485:
469:
450:
432:
418:
392:
347:
309:
296:
272:
250:
223:
209:
195:
173:
143:
33:
23:
Knowledge talk:Good
Article proposal drive 2023#Proposal 4A: Recognize exceptional reviews
787:
779:
762:
748:
724:
pinging users active or pinged above to see if there is still any interest in the idea
699:
691:
612:
545:
442:
426:
410:
329:
303:
217:
201:
184:
137:
110:
106:
27:
703:
160:
94:
715:
639:
that any user could place at the top (or bottom if that's preferred) of any review.
539:
102:
521:
512:
783:
741:
725:
657:
61:
707:
600:
The pencil icon more readily signifies "writing" or "editing" to me (like the
301:
How do you reconcile x% of votes per month with the idea of a rolling window?
90:
51:
711:
675:
533:
438:
404:
98:
543:) but with something like an "๐" icon to represent the act of reviewing.
215:
shows up and when rather than as a slate of several candidates to review.
56:
to notify the reviewers under consideration. Self-nominations are welcome.
154:
Do you have an idea on how the voting system will work? The phrasing '
642:
A category that would be populated by articles with the template.
354:(Sub-thread about GA-save awards; feel free to move if offtopic)
132:
Should there be an expiration date for nominating older reviews?
60:(3) In the last week of the month, nominees go up for a vote by
786:
Wouldn't one of the two bots already take care of it, though?
58:(2) Editors peruse and discuss these nominees when posted.
631:
Would there be interest in a simpler option like this:
579:
I have used ๐ before as an icon to signify reviewing.
652:Perhaps a bot that congratulates the reviewer?
129:Should we limit to two top nominees per month?
8:
328:I have had to do almost 100% of the work at
25:from the January 2023 GA proposal drive.
155:
649:or some kind of reverse notice board?
7:
441:Got it, thank you for clarifying.
14:
538:
520:
511:
502:
493:
484:
83:Pinging discussion participants
610:) not necessarily "reviewing".
156:the top nominees are recognized
1:
796:21:26, 30 November 2023 (UTC)
774:17:46, 19 November 2023 (UTC)
757:15:06, 19 November 2023 (UTC)
736:02:34, 19 November 2023 (UTC)
596:17:33, 28 February 2023 (UTC)
575:03:59, 27 February 2023 (UTC)
552:03:51, 27 February 2023 (UTC)
451:09:40, 28 February 2023 (UTC)
433:23:24, 27 February 2023 (UTC)
419:20:13, 27 February 2023 (UTC)
393:20:51, 27 February 2023 (UTC)
348:19:38, 27 February 2023 (UTC)
297:17:20, 28 February 2023 (UTC)
273:17:30, 28 February 2023 (UTC)
251:22:45, 27 February 2023 (UTC)
210:18:06, 27 February 2023 (UTC)
196:14:33, 27 February 2023 (UTC)
174:14:00, 27 February 2023 (UTC)
144:03:51, 27 February 2023 (UTC)
34:03:51, 27 February 2023 (UTC)
744:Thank you for flagging this!
668:18:10, 28 October 2023 (UTC)
818:
619:08:13, 4 March 2023 (UTC)
470:09:51, 3 March 2023 (UTC)
310:08:10, 4 March 2023 (UTC)
224:08:08, 4 March 2023 (UTC)
126:Would this proposal work?
66:
46:
21:For background, see
378:That's the ticket.
122:for your feedback:
68:This combines the
573:
395:
375:
372:
249:
809:
728:
723:
680:Unexpectedlydian
660:
627:Simpler proposal
617:
615:
609:
603:
592:
587:
584:
570:
565:
563:
550:
548:
542:
536:
524:
515:
506:
497:
488:
431:
429:
408:
385:
377:
374:
361:
353:
340:
325:
308:
306:
293:
288:
285:
269:
264:
261:
246:
241:
239:
222:
220:
172:
142:
140:
121:
87:Unexpectedlydian
55:
39:Process workshop
32:
30:
817:
816:
812:
811:
810:
808:
807:
806:
772:
726:
684:Thebiguglyalien
673:
658:
629:
613:
611:
607:
605:wikidata pencil
601:
590:
585:
582:
568:
561:Thebiguglyalien
559:
546:
544:
531:
529:
528:
527:
526:
525:
517:
516:
508:
507:
499:
498:
490:
489:
478:
427:
425:
402:
383:
355:
338:
319:
304:
302:
291:
286:
283:
267:
262:
259:
244:
237:Thebiguglyalien
235:
218:
216:
194:
159:
151:
138:
136:
84:
74:Milhist project
49:
41:
28:
26:
19:
12:
11:
5:
815:
813:
805:
804:
803:
802:
801:
800:
799:
798:
767:
745:
654:
653:
650:
643:
640:
628:
625:
624:
623:
622:
621:
577:
519:
518:
510:
509:
501:
500:
492:
491:
483:
482:
481:
480:
479:
477:
474:
473:
472:
457:
456:
455:
454:
453:
399:
398:
397:
396:
317:
316:
315:
314:
313:
312:
277:
276:
275:
230:
229:
228:
227:
226:
189:
177:
176:
150:
147:
134:
133:
130:
127:
59:
57:
40:
37:
18:
15:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
814:
797:
793:
789:
785:
781:
777:
776:
775:
771:
770:
766:
765:
760:
759:
758:
754:
750:
746:
743:
739:
738:
737:
733:
729:
721:
717:
713:
709:
705:
701:
697:
696:Olivaw-Daneel
693:
689:
688:Chipmunkdavis
685:
681:
677:
672:
671:
670:
669:
665:
661:
651:
648:
644:
641:
638:
634:
633:
632:
626:
620:
616:
606:
599:
598:
597:
594:
593:
588:
578:
576:
571:
564:
562:
556:
555:
554:
553:
549:
541:
535:
523:
514:
505:
496:
487:
476:Icon workshop
475:
471:
467:
463:
458:
452:
448:
444:
440:
436:
435:
434:
430:
422:
421:
420:
416:
412:
406:
401:
400:
394:
390:
386:
382:
376:
373:
370:
366:
365:Olivaw-Daneel
359:
352:
351:
350:
349:
345:
341:
337:
331:
326:
323:
322:Olivaw-Daneel
311:
307:
300:
299:
298:
295:
294:
289:
278:
274:
271:
270:
265:
254:
253:
252:
247:
240:
238:
231:
225:
221:
213:
212:
211:
207:
203:
199:
198:
197:
193:
192:
188:
187:
183:recognized.--
181:
180:
179:
178:
175:
170:
166:
165:
164:
157:
153:
152:
148:
146:
145:
141:
131:
128:
125:
124:
123:
120:
116:
115:Chipmunkdavis
112:
108:
104:
100:
96:
92:
88:
81:
77:
75:
71:
65:
63:
53:
45:
38:
36:
35:
31:
24:
16:
769:
763:
720:SandyGeorgia
655:
630:
580:
560:
530:
380:
358:SandyGeorgia
335:
327:
318:
281:
257:
236:
191:
185:
162:
161:
135:
119:SandyGeorgia
82:
78:
67:
47:
42:
20:
62:acclamation
583:Unexpected
284:Unexpected
260:Unexpected
149:Discussion
17:Background
788:Oltrepier
780:Gen. Quon
764:Gen. Quon
749:Oltrepier
700:Gen. Quon
692:Oltrepier
443:Oltrepier
411:Oltrepier
202:Oltrepier
186:Gen. Quon
111:Gen. Quon
107:Oltrepier
704:Etriusus
637:template
95:Etriusus
718:, and
716:Iazyges
384:Georgia
339:Georgia
330:WP:FASA
117:, and
103:Iazyges
784:Rjjiii
742:Rjjiii
586:lydian
287:lydian
263:lydian
163:Etrius
708:Kusma
647:WT:GA
381:Sandy
336:Sandy
91:Kusma
792:talk
753:talk
732:talk
712:JPxG
676:Czar
664:talk
614:czar
591:talk
569:talk
547:czar
534:JPxG
466:talk
447:talk
439:Czar
428:czar
415:talk
405:Czar
389:Talk
369:talk
344:Talk
305:czar
292:talk
268:talk
245:talk
219:czar
206:talk
139:czar
99:JPxG
72:and
70:FASA
29:czar
727:Rjj
659:Rjj
462:CMD
391:)
346:)
794:)
755:)
734:)
714:,
710:,
706:,
702:,
698:,
694:,
690:,
686:,
682:,
678:,
666:)
635:A
608:}}
602:{{
468:)
449:)
417:)
371:)
208:)
169:Us
113:,
109:,
105:,
101:,
97:,
93:,
89:,
54:}}
50:{{
790:(
782:@
778:@
751:(
740:@
730:(
722::
674:@
662:(
572:)
566:(
532:@
464:(
445:(
437:@
413:(
407::
403:@
387:(
367:(
360::
356:@
342:(
324::
320:@
248:)
242:(
204:(
171:)
167:(
85:@
52:u
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.