User talk:Squeamish Ossifrage
 | This user may have left Wikipedia. Squeamish Ossifrage has not edited Wikipedia since December 2020. As a result, any requests made here may not receive a response. If you are seeking assistance, you may need to approach someone else. |
| Squeamish Ossifrage, communication, and you:
Whenever possible, I will ensure that talk page communications are threaded. This means that I will continue conversations on the talk page they begin, whether that be here or somewhere else. I watchlist talk pages where I am involved in conversation. If you are involved in conversation on my talk page, please consider either temporarily adding it to your watchlist, or at least checking in regularly while the conversation is ongoing. Communication, after all, is what makes this project possible! |
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 31 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 3 sections are present. |
WikiCup 2019 March newsletter
[edit]And so ends the first round of the competition. Everyone with a positive score moves on to Round 2. With 56 contestants qualifying, each group in Round 2 contains seven contestants, with the two leaders from each group due to qualify for Round 3 as well as the top sixteen remaining contestants.
Our top scorers in Round 1 were:
L293D, a WikiCup newcomer, led the field with ten good articles on submarines for a total of 357 points.
Adam Cuerden, a WikiCup veteran, came next with 274 points, mostly from eight featured pictures, restorations of artwork.
MPJ-DK, a wrestling enthusiast, was in third place with 263 points, garnered from a featured list, five good articles, two DYKs and four GARs.- Usernameunique came next at 243, with a featured article and a good article, both on ancient helmets.
Squeamish Ossifrage was in joint fifth place with 224 points, mostly garnered from bringing the 1937 Fox vault fire to featured article status.
Ed! was also on 224, with an amazing number of good article reviews (56 actually).
These contestants, like all the others, now have to start scoring points again from scratch. Between them, contestants completed reviews on 143 good articles, one hundred more than the number of good articles they claimed for, thus making a substantial dent in the review backlog. Well done all!
Remember that any content promoted after the end of Round 1 but before the start of Round 2 can be claimed in Round 2. Invitations for collaborative writing efforts or any other discussion of potentially interesting work is always welcome on the WikiCup talk page. Remember, if two or more WikiCup competitors have done significant work on an article, all can claim points. If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article candidates, a featured process, or anywhere else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews.
If you want to help out with the WikiCup, please do your bit to keep down the review backlogs! Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. Godot13 (talk), Sturmvogel 66 (talk), Vanamonde (talk) and Cwmhiraeth (talk).
Boring Lava Field
[edit]Hi, Squeamish Ossifrage, I've listed Boring Lava Field for peer review here. Still working on the reference issues you mentioned; trying to decide whether I want to scrap the masters thesis projects altogether and replace them, or reduce my reliance on them. Would appreciate any further feedback. Thanks, ceranthor
Redlinks
[edit]Maybe it's because the names on the Wikipedia pages don't exist.