The purpose of the GA Cup is two-fold: to shorten the perpetually long queues at GAN, and probably most importantly, to have fun. Remember that we're here to improve Wikipedia. Also remember that this can be done by showing respect to other users and to Wikipedia as a whole. If participants disrupt Wikipedia through the GA Cup, by abusing the rules, by creating a negative atmosphere, etc., they will be removed from the competition. The rules will likely not change mid-competition, although changes will be made on this page if needed. Please ask any questions as issues arise.
The first step is to choose an article to review. Any GA nomination from this list is eligible. Any GA reassessment from this list is eligible though there are restrictions (see below).
All reviews are worth a base total of 10 points. Additional points will be awarded based upon different criteria, and will be assessed by the judges. In general, more complex article reviews are worth more points. All reviews that are under 1000 characters are not eligible in the GA Cup.
Nomination date:
Extra 10 points: An article from the pink box at the top of the nomination page consisting of the oldest unreviewed good article nominations or a nomination from here (this list contains the 10 oldest nominations).*
Extra 8 points: An article that has been in the queue for over 4 months (120 days).*
Extra 6 points: An article that has been in the queue for over 3 months (90 days).*
Extra 4 points: An article that has been in the queue for over 2 months (60 days).*
Extra 2 points: An article that has been in the queue for over 1 month (30 days).*
All articles in the queue for less than one month are only worth the base 10 points.
* You only earn points from the highest tier. For example, if a nomination is 3 months old, you will get awarded 16 points, not 22.
NOTE: These points will be awarded based off the date the review is started.
Article size:
Extra 5 points for articles over 25,000 characters.
Extra 3 points for articles between 10,000 - 24,999 characters.
Extra 1 point for articles between 5,000 - 9,999 characters.
NOTE:Sizes DO NOT include images, infoboxes, templates, etc. You can use the DYK tool to calculate the article size. Also, these points will be assessed at the end of the review.
Review comprehensiveness:
Extra 5 points for reviews over 15,000 characters.
Extra 3 points for reviews between 10,000 and 14,999 characters.
GA Reassessments:
All GARs are worth 2 points.
NOTE: This does not include nominating. Only leaving comments/reviewing a GAR counts; so long as it is not a GAR that you nominated (community or individual review). Closing the GAR does not count (but by all means do so once there is a consensus); you must leave an opinion of whether to delist or not. You can only receive a maximum of 2 points no matter how active you are in the reassessment; so long as you leave your opinion with an explanation, you will get the points. Individual and Community reassessments are both worth 2 points.
Fails without granting time for improvements:
All quick fails without granting time for improvements are worth 0 points. No bonus points and no exceptions. For the purposes of the GA Cup, a fail without granting time for improvement is determined if one or both of the following criteria is followed:
a) the reviewer fails the article without assessing the article at all;
b) the reviewer begins a review and fails the nomination before assessing the entire article;
c) the reviewer reviews the article properly without allowing 7 days for the nominator to address the issues.
Quick passing:
Also called a "rubber stamp review", a review determined to be a quick pass is worth 0 points and may lead to disqualification. For the purposes of the GA Cup, a quick pass is determined if one or both of the following criteria is followed:
a) the review is started and passed shortly after with no comments. Nominations that are short in length are still expected to have some sort of comments from the reviewer; every article always has room for improvement;
b) there are still issues in the article that would cause the nomination to fail one or more of the GA criteria.
NOTE: As mentioned in part a), the judges are expecting comments in every review. There is no set ratio in how many comments need to be made given the article length (an article that is 500,000 characters long does not have to have more comments than a 5,000 character article); however, do not take advantage of this; the judges will notice.
Judges reserve the right to refuse/delay awarding points. In this case, the judge will provide a valid reason why the points were not awarded.
IPs cannot participate. You must have a registered account on Wikipedia.
Submit your content to your submissions' page including all necessary links. Points will be awarded by the judges after the review is complete. Click on the "Submissions" tab above for more information. Reviews not listed on your submissions' page will not be assessed for points.
Short reviews are not allowed; quick fails and very short reviews will not be awarded points. No review shorter than 1000 characters will be considered, though the judges reserve the right to remove other short reviews. Exceptions can be made at the sole discretion of the judge. If the judges deem that a competitor is passing articles just for the purpose of racking up points, the review will be removed and the competitor may be disqualified.
You may only score points in a round for reviews which have been completed in that round.
An exception exists for reviews completed after the end of a round. In these cases, points will be awarded for the round afterwards (if you qualify). In the Final, all reviews must be completed before the competition ends; no exceptions.
For reassessments, no matter how active you are in the reassessment, points will be awarded based off the date when you provided your opinion (with an explanation). If you provided your opinion during a break (the time between one round ending and the next round starting), the points will be carried over to the next round (if you qualify).
Only reviews started during the competition are eligible. For reassessments, only opinions that are made during the competition are eligible.
You can take over an unfinished review, but you must have done the majority of the review to earn points for it. It must also be a complete review.
If you wrote or co-wrote an article that has been nominated, you cannot review it.
If the nominator of the article review requests a second opinion, your review still counts; again, if your review is complete.
There are restrictions to earning points for GA Reassessments. See the "Scoring" section above for more details.
Remember, the point of the GA Cup is to have a fun, fair competition between everyone participating. If you are found to be abusing/violating any of the rules, you will be given a warning. On your second offence, you will be disqualified.
If there is clear evidence that you are adding unnecessary text just to make your review longer, a warning will be given and the judges may not award the "Review comprehensiveness" bonus points or any points for that nomination.
If you vandalise a GA Cup page you will be automatically disqualified without warning.
You may be disqualified if you are blocked because of vandalism or any other serious matter.
