Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Articles for creation/November 2023 Backlog Drive

Leaderboard appearance

My name isn't appearing on the leaderboard. First I assumed this was because I only did my first reviews a couple of hours ago, and maybe the board just hasn't updated yet, and I would appear once I had a non-zero score to display. But then I realised that at least half the names on the board are showing zero scores, so that can't be it. Any idea why my name isn't there? Or on a slightly broader point, why are only 74 names appearing on the leaderboard, although 80 participants have signed up? -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 11:40, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

@Ingenuity: it seems to originate from the participants' list itself. If I am reading the regex right, the bot did not count participants which entry starts with {{User}}. Only those with {{User}} are not listed in the latest update, Special:Permalink/1182950091. I have updated the participants list, Special:Diff/1182954917. Can you update the leaderboard again? – robertsky (talk) 11:57, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

Whoops! I really should've made the regex case-insensitive... Thanks for spotting that. I've fixed the code now, and I'll run the bot again soon. — Ingenuity (talk • contribs) 12:15, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

Leaderboard update frequency

Good start. Nice to see the leaderboard so early. What is the update frequency, please? More important for new reviewers who enjoy seeing progress made. Well, so do we all, but new reviewers always need encouragement 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 13:13, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

Right now the frequency is "whenever I run the script". I'll set up a cronjob later to automatically run it every hour or two. — Ingenuity (talk • contribs) 13:16, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

@Ingenuity That makes a lot of sense. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 14:09, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

Re-reviews

At an earlier drive there was a requirement to do a minimum number (10% of one's reviews, IIRC) of re-reviews. Which was probably a bit of a hassle to administer, but at least it ensured some level of QC. I take it that's not being done now?

Also, in at least one drive (may have been the same one as in the previous point) there was an extra week or so allowed after the drive ended to do the re-reviews. What's the policy this time? -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 14:18, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

I missed these out when copying from the 2-week drive. Will have these included. Thanks for bringing this up. – robertsky (talk) 16:42, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

@DoubleGrazing: Looking at the July 2021 Backlog Drive, it was worded as:

It is recommended that each participant have had at least 10% of their reviews (or 3 reviews, whichever is more) re-reviewed.

It is recommended that each participant have conducted a number of re-reviews greater than 10% of their number of reviews.

There's no mention of minimum if it was recommended. If we want to enforce a minimum, a modification to the second line?

> To qualify for the barnstar awarded for the accumulated points achieved, the participant has conducted a number of re-reviews greater than 10% of their number of reviews. Otherwise, the participant will be accorded the next lower barnster award, with Browine award being the lowest given. The top 3 rank awards will be given to the top 3 reviewers who have also conducted a number of re-reviews greater than 10% of their number of reviews. – robertsky (talk) 16:55, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

I should not get credit for Draft:Simon Rosenthal

I declined for copyvio but the creator pointed out the source is fair use so I reversed my decline. If there is a better place to note this let me know and also fine with someone giving me a re-review fail. S0091 (talk) 16:58, 1 November 2023 (UTC)