On 31 October 2015 at 17:43, Ilario Valdelli <valdelli(a)gmail.com> wrote:
Pictures uploaded: 4.443
New users registered on Commons: 325
New users engagement: 79%
Pictures user on Wikipedia: 86 (2%)
Are the goals reached? Basically yes. When the project has been financed it
was clear that the definition "success" was based on those measures.
The comment here puzzled me, especially from an involved GAC member,
as grant targets should not be "stretch targets" but realistic
commitments to be met with the invested money. I went back to read the
grant page and accurately it can be stated (traffic light colours
added by me):
1. [GREEN] at least 400 participants uploading one photograph or more;
2. [RED] at least 5,000 photos uploaded;
3. [RED] at least 15% of photos used on Wikipedia [i.e. > 666
photographs in use];
4. [GREEN] at least 50% of new users engagement during the contest;
5. [RED] at least 10 new articles about natural heritage sites in
Brasil [no report];
6. [RED] at least 10% of new user retention after 2 months of the
contest [no report].
There are a number of clarifications on the grant talk page,
especially Wang's (WMF) significant questions raised under "WMF
comments". The clarifications add detail to the above 6 measures, but
also make some further commitments which have yet to be reported on.
Based on this detail, it would not be possible to "close-out" the
grant against reported results until December 2015. I recommend that
the Wikimedia Community Brazilian Group of Education and Research go
the extra mile to measure and report the detail so that their 2016
grant applications can demonstrate learning from the targets that were
met or not met in this project.
== Technical Note ==
Most of the measurements can be produced from using SQL on the Commons
and Wikipedia(s) databases, if the more web-friendly tools such as
Catscan are not up to the job. It may be worth asking for help at 
or  if this gets stuck/seems a lot of effort, as such scripts are
fairly easy to re-run each month and can be 'recycled' in coming years
once worked out.
== Community Observation ==
It might help future on-wiki discussion if questions are
enumerated/logged and seen to be responded to in a non-personalized
style. Even if the perception is that someone is griefing the project
or organization, if you can bat back questions with formal and direct
replies with hard measurements and statistics, or a clear explanation
of why it is not worth the volunteer or staff time to report in some
areas, then not only would the questions dry up, but they form a
useful foundation for future more robust grant requests. Keep in mind
that testing questions do add value.
3. IRC #wikimedia-tech