The March 2024 GAN Backlog Drive is a one-month-long effort to reduce the backlog of Good Article nominations. Please ensure that you familiarise yourself with the Good Article review process before starting to review an article, and that you are familiar with the GA criteria and the Manual of Style. Also, it is recommended that you read the essays What the Good article criteria are not and Reviewing good articles. The co-ordinators for this drive are Vaticidalprophet, Ganesha811, and asilvering. If you have any questions, leave a message on this drive's talk page. The drive began on 1 March 2024 at 00:00:00 (UTC) and ends on 31 March 2024 at 23:59:59 (UTC). You can sign up and start reviewing any time during the month.

The ultimate goal of this backlog elimination drive is to cut the number of outstanding GANs. Awards will be given out to those individuals who do the most work in helping reduce the size of the backlog and reach milestones related to the number, age, and size, of articles reviewed. The drive is intended to promote a faster rate of decreasing backlog while maintaining quality reviews.

1. 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.
2. No rubber-stamping GANs. Good Article nominations tend to result in even better improvements if a reasonable amount of issues are brought up in a review. This can be especially useful when approaching Featured Article standing. Quick-fails are allowed if the article is in exceptionally poor shape or per the GA criteria page. Reviews and articles will be checked by the co-ordinators to ensure that rubber-stamping does not happen. If a participant is found rapidly rubber-stamping GANs that do not meet the criteria, they may be disqualified and possibly reported to the administrators' noticeboard for disruptive editing.
3. Minimum quality. Only reviews of a sufficient quality will be counted. This is subjective, and coordinators reserve the right to credit or discredit individual reviews. Reviews that are shorter than 1000 bytes are unlikely to be counted.
4. 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. However, be sure to 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.
5. 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 judgement if concerns are/are not addressed in a timely matter.
6. 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.

Numbers are reported as described here.

Date	Outstanding nominations	Unreviewed nominations	Change since previous day[N 1]	Change since beginning[N 1]
1 March 2024	750	655	—	—
2 March 2024	750	603	52 (7.9%)	52 (7.9%)
3 March 2024	743	576	27 (4.5%)	79 (12.1%)
4 March 2024	732	549	27 (4.7%)	106 (16.2%)

To receive an award, please include your name and the number of reviews you have completed as part of this drive. The co-ordinators will award you points based on those reviews. Awards will be given by the co-ordinators after this drive ends.

This is the scheme for the awards:

At least 3 points: The Minor Barnstar

At least 7 points: The Working Wikipedian's Barnstar

At least 12 points: The Reviewer Barnstar

At least 20 points: The Premium Reviewer Barnstar

At least 30 points: The Multiple Good Article Reviewer Barnstar

At least 40 points: The WikiProject Good Articles Medal of Merit

At least 60 points: The Order of the Superior Scribe of Wikipedia

In addition, the person who accumulates the most points during the backlog elimination drive will receive the Content Review Medal of Merit

Scoring

The March backlog drive works on a points system, to help incentivize quality reviews and focus on articles that may be neglected.

• One point is awarded for every article reviewed.
• For each 90 days an article has been in the backlog, an additional half-point is awarded (so a 90-day-old nomination receives 1.5 points, a 180-day-old nomination 2 points, etc). This is measured by the date at which the review begins.

• For every 2500 words of readable prose (measured by prosesize), an additional half-point is awarded (so a 2500-word article receives 1.5 points, a 5000-word article 2 points, etc). This is measured by the article's length at becoming a GA.
  • Passes of articles under 800 words readable prose at the time of passing will not receive points. Fails will, as will articles that increase in size between the beginning of the review and their becoming a GA.
  • If an article is massively reduced in size between the beginning of a nomination and the close of the review, discuss the situation with coordinators.
• Quickfails are capped at one point and will not receive additional points for length or age. Fails during a full review, such as due to disagreement about the reviewer's suggestions, nominator inactivity, or the discovery of issues not found at the beginning of the review, will be considered on a case-by-case basis.
• Coordinators may choose at their discretion to award additional points to reviews considered of especially high quality. This is determined on a case-by-case basis. Nominators or reviewers can suggest reviews they think may be candidates, but the decision lies with coordinators.

List of qualifying old articles

The following list contains all nominations that are currently 90+ days old. Nominations 180+ days old are bolded, and nominations 270+ days old in bold italics (Note: there are no longer any 270+ articles left to review!)

• After starting a review of one of these articles, please remove it from the list.
• This list is manually updated as additional nominations reach eligibility, and automatically formats nominations that age into the 180+ and 270+ sections.

Keep track of the articles you review in the Participants section below by creating a list below. Only passes and fails will be recognised as completing a review. If necessary, you can put the article on hold if the article needs to be edited further to be passed. Each of your reviews should be included in your list. Article reviews started before 31 March but completed after that date can be included, but aim to be prompt to avoid leaving nominators hanging. Reviews started before 1 March do not count; this includes all reviews for which the nominator created the relevant page pre-1 March. Please state if the article is a pass, fail, or on hold. Make sure you follow up on reviews that you have started or placed on hold.

A sample review section is below; all sections start with a fourth-level header containing the editor's username and the ((Div col)) and ((Div col end)) templates. Between those templates, each article reviewed is given its own line. Use the "GA" icon line for an article that passes, the "FGAN" icon line for an article that fails, the "GAH" icon line for an article where the initial review is complete and has been placed on hold, and the "GAN" icon line for an article where the review has started but has not yet been placed on hold. (Change "GAN" and "GAH" to "GA" or "FGAN" when the article passes or fails.) After the article name is a parenthetical for the number of words in the article. If the nomination is 90 or more days old when you begin your review, add "90+", "180+", or "270+" (as relevant) after the number of words.

Following the ((Div col end)) template are three lines to tabulate each participant's total number of articles reviewed, total number of old nominations reviewed, and running points total. Coordinators will update the running points total as they check reviews; feel free to modify the other two lines yourself.

====[[User talk:Username|Username]]====
((Div col))
#((icon|GA)) [[Talk:Articlename/GAn|Articlename]] (# words) (90+)
#((icon|FGAN)) [[Talk:Articlename/GAn|Articlename]] (# words)
#((icon|GAH)) [[Talk:Articlename/GAn|Articlename]] (# words) (180+)
#((icon|GAN)) [[Talk:Articlename/GAn|Articlename]] (# words)
((Div col end))
'''Articles reviewed:'''
<br>'''Old nominations reviewed:'''
<br>'''Running points total:'''

Participants (alphabetical order)

AirshipJungleman29

Articles reviewed:
Old nominations reviewed:
Running points total:

Arconning

Articles reviewed:
Old nominations reviewed:
Running points total:

AryKun

Articles reviewed:
Old nominations reviewed:
Running points total:

asilvering

Articles reviewed:
Old nominations reviewed:
Running points total:

Averageuntitleduser

Articles reviewed:
Old nominations reviewed:
Running points total:

Benmite

Articles reviewed:
Old nominations reviewed:
Running points total:

BigLordFlash

Articles reviewed:
Old nominations reviewed:
Running points total:

Bluecrystal004

Articles reviewed:
Old nominations reviewed:
Running points total:

Bruxton

Articles reviewed: 3
Old nominations reviewed:
Running points total: 3.5

Butlerblog

Articles reviewed:
Old nominations reviewed:
Running points total:

DimensionalFusion

Articles reviewed:
Old nominations reviewed:
Running points total:

Dontuseurrealname

Articles reviewed:
Old nominations reviewed:
Running points total:

Ealdgyth

Articles reviewed:
Old nominations reviewed:
Running points total:

FenrisAureus

Articles reviewed:
Old nominations reviewed:
Running points total:

Fritzmann

Articles reviewed:
Old nominations reviewed:
Running points total:

Frostly

Articles reviewed:
Old nominations reviewed:
Running points total:

Ganesha811

Articles reviewed:
Old nominations reviewed:
Running points total:

Generalissima

Articles reviewed:
Old nominations reviewed:
Running points total:

Ghosts of Europa

Articles reviewed:
Old nominations reviewed:
Running points total:

Goldsztajn

Articles reviewed:
Old nominations reviewed:
Running points total:

Grk1011

Articles reviewed:
Old nominations reviewed:
Running points total:

Grnrchst

Articles reviewed:
Old nominations reviewed:
Running points total:

grungaloo

Articles reviewed: 4
Old nominations reviewed: 4
Running points total: 12

HickoryOughtShirt?4

Articles reviewed:
Old nominations reviewed:
Running points total:

Kj cheetham

Articles reviewed:
Old nominations reviewed:
Running points total:

Kusma

Articles reviewed:
Old nominations reviewed:
Running points total:

LEvalyn

Articles reviewed:
Old nominations reviewed:
Running points total:

Llewee

Articles reviewed: 1
Old nominations reviewed:
Running points total: 1.5

MovieTalk101178

Articles reviewed:
Old nominations reviewed:
Running points total:

MrLinkinPark333

Articles reviewed: 2
Old nominations reviewed:
Running points total: 2

NegativeMP1

Articles reviewed:
Old nominations reviewed:
Running points total:

PCN02WPS

Articles reviewed:
Old nominations reviewed:
Running points total:

PizzaKing13

Articles reviewed:
Old nominations reviewed:
Running points total:

PhotoEditor123

Articles reviewed:1
Old nominations reviewed:
Running points total:

Reidgreg

Articles reviewed:
Old nominations reviewed:
Running points total:

Relativity

Articles reviewed:
Old nominations reviewed:
Running points total:

Remsense

Articles reviewed:
Old nominations reviewed:
Running points total:

Riley1012

Articles reviewed:
Old nominations reviewed:
Running points total:

Rusalkii

Articles reviewed:
Old nominations reviewed:
Running points total:

Sammi Brie

Articles reviewed: 8
Old nominations reviewed:
Running points total: 16

Sammielh

Articles reviewed:
Old nominations reviewed:
Running points total:

sawyer-mcdonell

Articles reviewed: 4
Old nominations reviewed: 1
Running points total: 3.5

SilverTiger12

Articles reviewed:

1. History of philosophy/GA1 (180+)

Old nominations reviewed:
Running points total:

Sims2aholic8

Articles reviewed:
Old nominations reviewed:
Running points total:

Skyshifter

Articles reviewed:
Old nominations reviewed:
Running points total:

Spinixster

Articles reviewed: 1
Old nominations reviewed:
Running points total: 1

Sturmvogel_66

Articles reviewed:
Old nominations reviewed:
Running points total:

TechnoSquirrel69

Articles reviewed:
Old nominations reviewed:
Running points total:

Thebiguglyalien

Articles reviewed:
Old nominations reviewed:
Running points total:

The C of E

Articles reviewed:
Old nominations reviewed:

1. Talk:2022 Aberdeenshire Council election/GA1 (1,521 words) (270+)

Running points total:

Unexpectedlydian

Articles reviewed:
Old nominations reviewed:
Running points total:

voorts

Articles reviewed:
Old nominations reviewed:
Running points total:

Youprayteas

Articles reviewed:
Old nominations reviewed:
Running points total:

Z1720

Articles reviewed:
Old nominations reviewed:
Running points total: