User:SandyGeorgia/FAC review stats

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] February FAC stats

For the month of February, FAC had:

  • 129 candidates (69 promoted, 60 archived)
  • Over 500 declarations from more than 200 editors, including
    • 21 editors with 6 or more FAC declarations
    • another 59 editors with 2–5 FAC declarations
    • another 128 editors with 1 FAC declaration.

The top five reviewers in terms of quantity of articles reviewed were:

I reviewed the FAC archives to score all declarations relative to the outcome of the FAC or subsequent work on the FAC on a scale from +5 to –5. Minus 5 represented an invalid oppose or a support on an article that other editors subsequently identified as having significant deficiencies (that is, more than easily fixed MoS issues). A plus 5 represented a significant, "roll up your sleeves and dig in" review that was decisive in the outcome or in helping an article attain featured status. Scores in between were for routine supports and opposes that either agreed with (+ 3) or differed from (– 3) the outcome. All of the top 5 quantity reviewers had significantly positive average quality scores. Among the top 10 quantity reviewers, the editors with the highest average quality of review scores (above 4) were:

In the top 20 quantity reviewers, high quality scores (above 4) also came from:

The editors above had more than five reviews and either rarely missed the mark (for example, declaring a Support on an article that failed or where other editors found sufficient deficiencies), or dug in and helped get a stalled article promoted by providing the feedback necessary for the nominator to bring the article to status.

Combining quantity and quality of reviews reveals topnotch work at FAC in February from Karanacs, Laser brain and Ealdgyth, and Epbr123, Tony1 and Juliancolton.

That's the good news. Additionally, among the most active reviewers, 2 of the top 10 (4 of the top 20) had negative average quality of review scores, meaning they more often than not entered a declaration that was out of step with the other declarations on the FAC (usually an unwarranted Support, occasionally an invalid Oppose) ... yes, in the content areas that most often come under fire for quality.

Putting together the spreadsheet to tally all of this took me all day; I doubt I'll be able to do it every month. As I expected, a very small minority of reviewers are entering declarations that aren't well grounded in WP:WIAFA, and a handful of reviewers are keeping FAC moving forward, doing the bulk of the work. Epbr123 (talk · contribs) is now semi-retired; we need more quality reviewers, because these few people are helping featured article writers put Wiki's best work on the main page. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:25, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Awards

{{CRM}}
{{ReviewersAward}}

[edit] Thank you for your work at FAC during April

The Content Review Medal of Merit  
To Name,
For your exceptional reviews of xx Featured article candidates during the month of April, the FAC community and I thank you for being one of the top reviewers this month and for your dedication to helping assure that only Wiki's finest work is recognized on the Main Page.[1]
SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:31, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] April FAC stats

For the month of April, FAC had:

  • 120 candidates (61 promoted, 59 archived)
  • Over 765 statements from more than 230 editors, including
    • 5 editors with 25 or more reviews
    • 4 editors with 11 to 15 reviews
    • 6 editors with 10 reviews
    • 41 editors with 3 to 9 reviews
    • and another 174 editors with 1 or 2 FAC statements.

The top five reviewers in terms of quantity of articles reviewed were:

The four editors with 11 to 15 reviews were

I reviewed the FAC archives to assign positive points for extra effort on a review or a review that was a determining factor in the outcome, and negative points for unactionable opposes or support on a nomination that other editors subsequently identified as having significant deficiencies. Among the top 15 quantity reviewers, the top quality reviewers (those who made a difference in getting a FAC closed or gave time-consuming or in-depth reviews) were:

Three of the top 15 quantity reviewers (more than 10 reviews) had a net negative on this measure of quality of reviews.

Combining quantity and quality scores from the group of the top 15, the top 10 FAC reviewers in April were:

  1. Ealdgyth (talk · contribs)
  2. Tony1 (talk · contribs)
  3. Elcobbola (talk · contribs)
  4. GrahamColm (talk · contribs)
  5. Karanacs (talk · contribs)
  6. BuddingJournalist (talk · contribs)
  7. Awadewit (talk · contribs)
  8. Yomangani (talk · contribs)
  9. Jbmurray (talk · contribs)
  10. Roger Davies (talk · contribs)

"Honorable mentions" go to Epbr123 (talk · contribs) (for running through countless FACs at my request, to do pre-promotion MoS cleanup even if he never weighs in on the FACs), and Dweller (talk · contribs) and Laser brain (talk · contribs) for especially in-depth reviews, even though they didn't reach the threshhold of the top quantity reviewers. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:56, 1 May 2008 (UTC)