User talk:Well-rested/Archives/2014/March

WikiCup 2014 February newsletter

And so ends the most competitive first round we have ever seen, with 38 points required to qualify for round 2. Last year, 19 points secured a place; before that, 11 (2012) or 8 (2011) were enough. This is both a blessing and a curse. While it shows the vigourous good health of the competition, it also means that we have already lost many worthy competitors. Our top three scorers were:

1. Godot13 (submissions), a WikiCup newcomer whose high-quality scans of rare banknotes represent an unusual, interesting and valuable contribution to Wikipedia. Most of Godot's points this round have come from a large set of pictures used in Treasury Note (1890–91).
2. Adam Cuerden (submissions), a WikiCup veteran and a finalist last year, Adam is also a featured picture specialist, focusing on the restoration of historical images. This month's promotions have included a carefully restored set of artist William Russell Flint's work.
3. WikiRedactor (submissions), another WikiCup newcomer. WikiRedactor has claimed points for good article reviews and good articles relating to pop music, many of which were awarded bonus points. Articles include Sky Ferreira, Hannah Montana 2: Meet Miley Cyrus and "Wrecking Ball" (Miley Cyrus song).

Other competitors of note include:

• Hahc21 (submissions), who helped take Thirty Flights of Loving through good article candidates and featured article candidates, claiming the first first featured article of the competition.
• Prism (submissions), who claimed the first featured list of the competition with Natalia Kills discography.
• Cwmhiraeth (submissions), who takes the title of the contributor awarded the highest bonus point multiplier (resulting in the highest scoring article) of the competition so far. Her high-importance salamander, now a good article, scored 108 points.

After such a competitive first round, expect the second round to also be fiercely fought. Remember that any content promoted after the end of round 1 but before the start of round 2 can be claimed in round 2, but please do not update your submission page until March (UTC). 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 equally.

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 help 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. J Milburn (talk • email), The ed17 (talk • email) and Miyagawa (talk • email) 00:01, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Convergence of accounting standards

The article Convergence of accounting standards you nominated as a good article has failed ; see Talk:Convergence of accounting standards for reasons why the nomination failed. If or when these points have been taken care of, you may apply for a new nomination of the article. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Antidiskriminator -- Antidiskriminator (talk) 04:11, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Talk:Voluntary disclosure/GA1

Any updates on progress at Talk:Voluntary disclosure/GA1??? — Cirt (talk) 00:06, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

I can wait a little longer for this review, but if I don't hear back from you as to further progress, unfortunately I'd have to just re-assess and then close it at this point, as it's been open for about a month now. But I'll wait a little longer to hopefully hear back from you soon, — Cirt (talk) 20:34, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Hey Cirt! Many apologies about e lack of updates. I've been a little busy recently and haven't had time to work on this. Given that i'll likely not have the time needed to do work on this over the next few weeks, I thin the best thing to do is close the nomination. I'll definitely address the points you've already raised if I get back to working on this article in future, though. -Well-rested^Talk 09:43, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

DYK nomination of List of AACSB-accredited schools (accounting)

Hello! Your submission of List of AACSB-accredited schools (accounting) at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Orlady (talk) 21:42, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

• Well-rested, we need your input right away as to how soon you think you can finish fully updating the table. We're hoping you can get back to it soon, but it does seem to be a lot of work to get that kind of data on over 150 schools. (There's also a problem with the "City" column, since a city without a state can be confusing, and most of the column is still states anyway.) If it's going to take you a while, we'll probably have to close the nomination, but we want to hear from you. Many thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 18:01, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

Hello BlueMoonset. Apologies for taking an extremely long time to reply. Busyness has kept me away from my various to-dos on Wikipedia, so closing the review and reverting the page is for the best since (as you pointed out) a huge amount of work would be needed. On hindsight I should probably have asked to delist the article once it became clear that I would have to overhaul it extensively! -Well-rested^Talk 09:58, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

WikiCup 2014 March newsletter

A quick update as we are half way through round two of this year's competition. WikiCup newcomer Godot13 (submissions) (Pool E) leads, having produced a massive set of featured pictures for Silver certificate (United States), an article also brought to featured list status. Former finalist Adam Cuerden (submissions) (Pool G) is in second, which he owes mostly to his work with historical images, including a number of images from Urania's Mirror, an article also brought to good status. 2010 champion (Pool C) is third overall, thanks to contributions relating to naval history, including the newly featured Japanese battleship Nagato. Cliftonian (submissions), who currently leads Pool A and is sixth overall, takes the title for the highest scoring individual article of the competition so far, with the top importance featured article Ian Smith.

With 26 people having already scored over 100 points, it is likely that well over 100 points will be needed to secure a place in round 3. Recent years have required 123 (2013), 65 (2012), 41 (2011) and 100 (2010). Remember that only 64 will progress to round 3 at the end of April. Invitations for collaborative writing efforts or any other discussion of potentially interesting work is always welcome on the WikiCup talk page; if two or more WikiCup competitors have done significant work on an article, all can claim points equally. 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 help 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. J Milburn (talk • email), The ed17 (talk • email) and Miyagawa (talk • email) 22:55, 31 March 2014 (UTC)