Wikipedia talk:The Core Contest/2012 archive

Discussing rules

• Held over three weeks early in 2012.

I've thought a bit about this - long enough so we can see a chunk of improvement, yet not long enough to make it so labour intensive that it becomes all serious and folks start squabbling. The idea is this is sort of like a "flash mob" of improvement, not a drawn out process. Feel free to shoot that idea down in flames....Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:17, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

The original contest only lasted two weeks, but three weeks would also be good. BTW, if this does run -- hopefully with better leadership than before -- I may take part again. I wrote quite a bit of Emily Dickinson for the first Core Contest (tied for 5th place!), and I otherwise wouldn't have tackled that particular article if it hadn't been for the incentive. Perhaps I'll take on another woman writer. Virginia Woolf (C-class, poor sourcing) has been on my watchlist forever... María (yllosubmarine) 16:22, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Judges

Heh, me obviously..but I need some help. My idea is some FAC regulars who are thorough and scrupulous (to balance my slobbishness anyway).....Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:17, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

May want to have one person judge all the submissions for importance. It will still be debatable [Wiki is soooo perfect is the enemy of better], but at least it will be same across the submissions. I could imagine some little dummy equation with pageviews, project ratings, vital ratings, and written justification, outputting some point total. Have another person rate the articles for polish (1-10). And then another rate for substantive content added. Add or multiply the point. Don't know the exact shape, but should be easy to nuke out. Or could look at the scale the PPI used and see how that would work. Would not belabor this, just anuthing workable.

If you need people for subjects, some heavies are:

• history/politics: Kevin Myers
• Arts/lit: TK, Ceoil
• Bio: you or Uca (Sasata will want to participate)
• Physical science: MaterialScientist
• Pop culture: DVF, Christie

TCO (talk) 15:56, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

I am planning on participating, vice judging, unless there is some major arm-twisting. Think it would be less disruptive and support you better. Tentatively thinking about pounding out a chemical element. All the start ones, are not that notable (among elements), but some of the C's are extremely notable like Sodium.TCO (talk) 15:56, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

I am thinking about participating by improving the article on Nazi Germany. Adding content is not always an improvement; this one needs substantial content removed, to get it down to a manageable size (it is nearly 15000 words right now), and it needs sourcing. So that kind of improvement needs to be considered in the judging scheme. --Dianna (talk) 16:12, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

I think there is need for a page where we persistently collect and discuss ways to guage importance. TCO has a good start above:

• pageviews
• project ratings
• vital ratings
• number of interwiki links (added, broad coverage in TFA point rules)

--Ettrig (talk) 20:53, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Like it...

Well all except for waiting until 2012. You could start it tomorrow. Use the energy.

What I like about this is motivating improvement to B. As it is now, there are no social rewards for getting an article that far. Yet we have many stub/start VAs or stub/start high page view articles. Something like this will get a lot of people on a lot of articles. And reward the movement to B that otherwise would not be. And we're not dependant on GA or FA processes (or stressing them, really). And it will motivate going after the articles that are worst off and most important. Not ones that are close.

TCO (talk) 15:29, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

What is an entry

Are the entries articles, editors or something else? --Ettrig (talk) 20:48, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

An editor would submit their improvement to a candidate article over a three week period, such as the old contest at Wikipedia:The_Core_Contest/Entries#List_of_contest_entries. Judges would then look at the improvement and compare with the article and come to a decision at the end on the best worth. Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:03, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Judging entries

My thoughts are thus - the aim of the contest is to improve (hopefully) substantial parts of wikipedia's core material. That is, the big articles that only rarely get nominated at GA or FA, and hence may have lain fallow since the early days of wiki expansion. Some hefty articles are to be found at Wikipedia:Vital articles, while Wikipedia:The Core Contest/Articles is a pretty long list. I for one am happy to discuss any submission on another article which isn't on one of these lists, where the submitter feels they should be considered part of core material.

Once submitted, the level of improvement will be examined - the idea is that the following factors come into play (should other circumstances be equal):

• Submissions are looked at holistically, and consider referencing, comprehensiveness and prose.
• Bigger/broader articles trump narrower ones
• Fixing up of articles in a worse state is more valuable (e.g. fully inline referencing from 10 to 50% of an article is more valuable than referencing 50 to 90% of another, all other factors being equal, and filling a gaping hole in content is better still...)

Anyway, with those parameters, I think we can rate and rank submissions fairly. Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:39, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

Question...

Is it acceptable to work on more than one article? And can groups work together (I'm thinking specifically of the Equine project, where we're going to try to use this contest as our final motivating push to get horse up to FAC... along with other work)? Ealdgyth - Talk 14:08, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

Yes and yes. Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:34, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

More questions

I just stumbled across this accidentally. Maybe we should spread the word more? Also, if more than a single article is worked on, will it be a question of bringing it all the way to GA/FAC (very hard to do that amount of reading in three weeks for some of these topics) or simply or tidying/rewriting/ adding sources as much as possible. Truthkeeper (talk) 22:03, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Anyone home?

Just checking to see if anyone is still working on this or if it's been postponed for a while? Ealdgyth - Talk 21:35, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

I hope the competition is still going to run. I have only just found out about it, but it's been an idea that I've considered proposing for a very long time. Unfortunately I don't think it's had the required publicity. MasterOfHisOwnDomain (talk) 20:12, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

There was a note in this week's Signpost. I have taken the liberty of advertising the event at the Reward board and the Community bulletin board to help generate interest. -- Dianna (talk) 20:44, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost article was the first I've seen of this. I'm not sure if I'm extrapolating too much from my experience, but it might be worth advertising more widely and extending the end date. I've posted a notification at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history. Nick-D (talk) 10:50, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Prizes?

May I register my extreme distress at the idea that we are considering offering Amazon vouchers as prizes? I will readily admit that I may be considered to have a conflict of interest, since I work (part-time) for one of the few surviving bookstores that has not yet been driven out of business by Amazon; but it seems to me that an open-source project like ours should not legitimate the bad practices of a giant category-killing monster such as this. You might as well be offering Wal-Mart gift cards! Couldn't you find something a little less soul-destroying? There are lots of other, more generic ways to go, surely? --Orange Mike | Talk 13:16, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

I don't see the problem. Amazon is a popular site, because of how cheap and useable it is, therefore prizes will be more sought after than those which offer less. What generic ways do you propose instead? MasterOfHisOwnDomain (talk) 23:38, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Orangemike, I struggled to think of something else that was as verasatile as amazon and could be used worldwide. Had to think of something that'd be available to anyone anywhere and could be redeemed for a bunch of different things (there are only so many thinkgeek or cafepress things that are listed....) If you have any other ideas, I'd e happy to hear them. Casliber (talk · contribs)

I'd say pre-paid VISA or MasterCard cards are usable pretty much globally. --Orange Mike | Talk 20:45, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

(facepalm) I guess we wanted to distance the prizes from money as such...but yet keep it versatile enough to be useful (?) Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:48, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

Shifting goalposts

One of the vital articles I was working on, Frostbite, (preparing a major revision and expansion offline) was just removed from the list. Should I scramble and find a different topic (and hope it's not also removed in the next 9 days), or will the judges allow me to submit this as an entry, and judge eligibility by the composition of core and vital lists at the start of the competition? Sasata (talk) 17:42, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Essentially anyone can put a case for any broad article - so frostbite sounds a good one - and submit. We'll be balancing broadness vs. improvement etc. and having fun in the process :) Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:44, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Hmm

I didn't have enough time to prepare for this or I would have worked on the Fall of Constantinople article. Will there be another contest held in the near-ish future? 21:54, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

I too would like to take part in a future version of this (I managed to be almost completely unaware of it, probably through not paying attention in the right places). One other thing, there are some old pages that need archiving. I was going to comment at Wikipedia talk:The Core Contest/Entries, but that page hasn't been archived from what looks like a previous version of this contest. Carcharoth (talk) 00:48, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

Wow, I wish I would have known about this. --Laser brain (talk) 15:15, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Prizes

Sorry for the delay everybody - still waiting to hear about prizes from WMUK. Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:06, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

You might want to use this banner from the 2007/2008 contest.

		2008 Core Contest Winner Award
		Let it be known that USER was awarded Third Place in the first Wikipedia Core Contest. This award is based on his outstanding work in improving ARTICLE NAME. Thanks for your hard work in making Wikipedia's core articles better. USER ~~~~

Aaww, too cute....but I've already given out the awards. Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:01, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

I might have considered this one too.....Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:01, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Repeat Event?

Cas, are there any plans afoot for possibly making this a repeat (annual? semiannual?) event? I think it would be much to the benefit of the WP...and if it were regular would probably be able to attract more editors as more people learned about it. Dana boomer (talk) 20:41, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

(sorry, I borrowed your caption to make a new subheading for clarity...after putting all these damn images here...) - I was musing about this about how frequently to run something. Once yearly strikes me as too infrequent, but monthly too often. I did think of exploring some different ideas - such as rotating subjects - e.g. a Countering Systemic Bias contest - or a Women's Content improvement contest, a nation-specific one (Oz, US, Canada, UK), or even a biology-in-your-own-neighbourhood one - prize to go out and photograph something nearby you and make an article. I am open to ideas here. Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:32, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

PS: I guess if I were leaning to a frequency I'm guessing quarterly or six-monthly...? Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:33, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure if a nation-based approach would work, but any of the others probably would (assuming you can define what countering systemic bias is!) Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 00:43, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

What if you combined the nation one and the countering systemic bias one and instead did an under-represented continents set? One topic could be articles from Africa, another from South America, etc. If you wanted to be not quite so broad, you could go with splitting it up by the United Nations geoscheme or something - 5 sections of Africa and 3 of Latin America & the Caribbean to choose from :) That would give people a broad range of things to work on (just look at the god-awful shape that many of the African/Latin American country articles are in, for starters), but would (hopefully) draw people away from the comfort zones (which mainly end up being stuff about Oz, US, Canada, UK). If the subject/focus/topic/whatever is rotating, it would be a great opportunity to both draw in different people each time and keep editors from getting stale. Either quarterly or semi-annually would work, if you can find the funding for prizes that often... Dana boomer (talk) 01:26, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Sounds like a good idea - we can always just run Core Contest again soonish as a first up. Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:31, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Chapter one, in which Pooh Bear gives a summary of what has transpired of his wonderful adventure with Tigger, Christopher Robin and a bunch of other friendly toys

Right, an interesting mix of ten articles were buffed and submitted, and all were worthy of entry. I was fascinated by what people chose. Publicity was haphazard and I hold up my hand as responsible - I missed getting it in the signpost and mentioned it here and there (must summarise where I did so...).

Great to see two food articles (sugar and lettuce) being improved (these are underrepresented in Featured Content), as well as a few broad biology ones (horse, ecosystem and amphibian) as well as some core history material (middle ages and romanticism). At this stage, two (lettuce and middle ages) have achieved Good Article status since the competition. Both look on course for a crack at Featured Article candidacy. horse was already a GA but some input before FAC is prudent:)

The UK Chapter of the Wikimedia foundation has promised a total of £250 in Amazon vouchers which has been divided among the prizewinners, made up of a first (£75), second (£55) and four third prizes (£30). Casliber (talk · contribs) 08:58, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

Chapter two, in which the residents of the Hundred Acre Wood discuss what to do next...

• Right then.......August for a rerun? Now folks have had some experience, might be time to have a look at how to run it next time. I'll pop up some items and lay it out so we can graph out how folks feel. Casliber (talk · contribs) 09:08, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Lemme know when you want to start the rerun and I'll get it into the Signpost and Bugle for you. :-) Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 03:31, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

Timing: how long to run it over?

My idea for three weeks so that it was short, sharp and punchy. Long enough so that some real buffing could take place but short enough so it wasn't laboured and so folks wouldn't take it too seriously. It is supposed to be fun after all. But am I right? What do folks think is a good length of time to run it over?

Three weeks

1. I liked three weeks - it was long enough to make real progress on an article without letting it completely take over your life. Guettarda (talk) 12:59, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

Four weeks

1. Well, I'd say a calendar month, which is easy to remember & could help publicity. Also minimizes people on typical holiday trips etc being unable to compete if the timing is wrong. On the big articles, it all takes longer than this (see below), but a month is about right for a contest. Johnbod (talk) 12:01, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
2. The three-week contest seemed to work well, but I think that an extra week would have been nice. So, I really could be persuaded either way: three or four weeks. Three months (per Nick D below) is too long for a contest - people get burnt out, lose interest, etc. On high profile articles, editors can show their interest on the talk page prior to the contest, and just wait to do actual editing until the contest starts. Dana boomer (talk) 12:35, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
3. An extra week would not have hurt, but for me, if it was three weeks, I'd just have procrastinated until about the last month anyway... as it was, I procrastinated away the first week or so.. Ealdgyth - Talk 12:55, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

   This is actually why I liked three weeks - it was too short to procrastinate. Guettarda (talk) 13:01, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

4. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 03:31, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

Or longer?

1. Yes. On the high-profile articles which multiple editors are interested in, significant changes need to be discussed first. I'm intending to lead the development of the World War II article to A class status this year, but this will require input from lots of editors. I'd say three months would be about right. Nick-D (talk) 11:46, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

   Maybe one thing we could do is have a "ultra big" topic contest once ... with extended time and extra points for LOTS of different editors participation. This would cover only articles say on the Wikipedia:Vital articles/Level/1 or Wikipedia:Vital articles/Level/2 lists? Ealdgyth - Talk 13:05, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

   I guess there's no right answer. Given the work needed to get one of these type of articles (even a modest one) to GA, which I see as a good place to park one, four weeks looks like a good idea, as long as folks don't think it's too drawn out even then. Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:54, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

   I think that Ealdgyth's suggestion is a good one. The WW2 article is unusually complex, even for a high profile topic. Nick-D (talk) 23:36, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

   Yes, I think this is good. Maybe mixing it up we have a "long-haul marathon" over an extended period for one time, with teams on articles such as WWII and the level 1 vitals. Several other articles could fall in this category, such as Stalin, Mao, etc. Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:24, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

   Agreed with Ealdgyth. The issue with such a long contest would be that people would lose interest over time—we see it every year with the WikiCup. The thought of a dedicated 'big article' contest, though, is really good as well. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 03:31, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

Emphasis on poorer articles?

One idea I had in rating entries was the aim of prioritising some of the biggest eyesores on wikipedia, hence in the case of equal rates of "improvement", that fixing a poorer article was worth more. Do folks agree with this approach?

Yes

1. That's sensible. Posting a list of core articles that are in poor shape is also likely to encourage editors to participate. Nick-D (talk) 11:57, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
2. Absolutely. But the existing lists of core & vital articles are somewhat controversial. Articles with high views should also be prioritized. Johnbod (talk) 12:00, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
3. Yes. This is always going to be somewhat subjective, but some combination of page views, other wiki links (like the WP:CUP does), presence on various core/vital lists and gut feeling is probably good. Judges should have discretion on this criteria, and this is why we have experienced editors as judges. Dana boomer (talk) 12:37, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
4. What Dana said. There was never any doubt that Middle Ages sucked (and still needs work!) but there are some articles which aren't on the core/vital lists that would still be great to get up to speed. Ealdgyth - Talk 12:57, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
5. Yep, I think it's appropriate to weight improvements to poor articles heavily among the judging criteria. Guettarda (talk) 13:06, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
6. Per above, basically. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 03:31, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

Discussion

• I also find it fascinating to see what folks come up with to work on. Am glad there is support for this criterion as I wasn't sure about it initially Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:56, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

Timing: how often to run something like this?

Here's the thing - how do we balance keeping up momentum with editor fatigue? How often can we run something like this?

Every three months

1. My 2nd choice I think, for now anyway. Johnbod (talk) 12:07, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
2. This sounds workable too. Guettarda (talk) 13:12, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

Every four months

1. Maybe best, at least until it becomes better known & builds up more entrants. Johnbod (talk) 12:07, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
2. This would be my fist choice. Quarterly (every three months) seems a little quick. Every six months would probably be my second choice, at least until the contest becomes better known. Dana boomer (talk) 12:39, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
3. I'm torn between 4 and 6 months. I'd like a month lead time when people can get books through ILL, do basic reading, etc., so every four months is a bit close if we're doing a month of contest time, but I also think we have SOOO many bad articles that could use help...
4. It has been almost three months since the last contest started, so it's not a terribly short interval, but I think four would be better. Guettarda (talk) 13:11, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
5. Four months is best. A month of writing, a three-month break to ideally push said articles through FAC, then after a breather you hit the next one four months later. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 16:15, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Or less frequently?

1. If you can whip up a high enough profile, an annual (or six-monthly) drive would probably work best. From experience, working on high-profile articles can be quite draining. Nick-D (talk) 12:00, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
2. I would go for twice a year, with more publicity so that (hopefully) more editors get involved. If you have the contest too often, it would be a great strain on the organisers' and judges' time. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 12:45, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
3. I think twice a year would be best, but I'm not totally adverse to every four months. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 03:31, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

Discussion

• I am tentatively thinking of August, which is five months since the last one (March) - near enough to be on hte radar and far enough to be publicised etc. Also was thinking folks needed a bit of a recharge...Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:58, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

Format - other ideas

Rather than do a straight core contest each time, I had thought of (say) core womens' articles, core third world articles, medical articles...I'm sure there are others. How do folks feel about this? Casliber (talk · contribs) 09:25, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

I think keeping it general is best. But special prizes for particular types of articles is fine. Johnbod (talk) 12:07, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

I think that it would be interesting/fun to mix it up a little, but we would have to be cautious of getting too specialized and alienating potential participants. For example, if we did a core third world article contest, people with medical, history, social, military, biology, etc, etc backgrounds could all find articles that would fit their specialty but also be within the contest. On the other hand, core medical articles would be a much more narrow field because the majority of WP editors (and I'm including myself in this category) don't fully understand the specialized medical sourcing and MOS guidelines that are in place, and would have little idea of how to go about improving a high-importance, low-quality medical article beyond more than a little copyediting. Dana boomer (talk) 12:43, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

I think we should try for mostly general contests but say every third or fourth one do a specialized one. And I also hereby volunteer to judge at least once... Ealdgyth - Talk 13:01, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

As long as the standard was relaxed a little (i.e., "core women's articles" not "women's articles that make the core list") I think it would be workable. I think there's an interaction between breadth and frequency - if we go with (say) medical articles one time, and women's articles another, the pool of potential contestants would overlap less than if the category was third world articles. Guettarda (talk) 13:35, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

One good thing about that might be that it would let people go back and forth between being judges and participants, based on whether the topic interests them enough to enter. Guettarda (talk) 13:38, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

@Guettarda - that was the idea that I was thinking, there'd be articles that are somewhat specialised (i.e. not "core") but very broad in their field. I do foresee some rotation of judging... :) Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:00, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

Not really responding to anyone in particular above, but I like (heh) everyone's thoughts above. Dana has the great point that topic-based categories like "medical articles" will exclude a significant portion of WP editors. Guettarda's reminder about ensuring a broad definition in the categories is also prudent—in my view, as long as it's important and at least tangentially related, it should be okay (within the judges' discretion, of course).

Talking at you now as a WikiCup judge, which has broadly similar goals as this, we introduced point multipliers for core articles this year, and it's been relatively successful (as Casliber is all too aware!). Perhaps a version with this involving money could be involved, e.g. in a straight core contest, there's 1st/2nd/3rd place prizes along with a 'most improved and important article' prize (and maybe 'most improved article in an area of systemic bias'? etc.)? User:J Milburn would be a good person to ask for more ideas, as he does the day-to-day running of the Cup and is a better thinker than me. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 03:32, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

Prize conundrum

• I thought of amazon vouchers as it (a) distances prizes away from cash and the whole paid editing issue, (b) is worldwide and hence useable by winners in any country, and (c) is something related to books and hence repositories of knowledge (a la wikipedia). OrangeMike (talk · contribs) was unhappy as mentioned further up this page. So does anyone else have any other ideas? Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:23, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

• I think amazon is fine, but if they're in British pounds, don't know whether only UK Amazon can be used. The shipping could be very pricey - for books. Truthkeeper (talk) 01:29, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

• I have no problem with Amazon, but would definitely be concerned if they could only be used for UK Amazon. Shipping across the pond is...not cheap...to say the least. Dana boomer (talk) 02:52, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

• Well, the point was something international so folks everywhere could benefit. so should work out ok...Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:20, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

• It's simple enough to send Amazon vouchers in the winner's preferred currency via the various Amazon websites, so I'd be surprised if this is a problem... (a few years ago I offered an Amazon voucher in GBP as a prize, the person that won it was American, so I sent it in USD via amazon.com). Or you could just offer a replacement prize to the same value from a similar website instead if need be. Mike Peel (talk) 23:19, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

• Another option to avoid advertising suppliers might be to offer books directly as prizes, which could be bought and sent out by whichever chapter is closest and able to buy them in order to minimize postage costs (they could then be refunded the money if the prizes are coming from a single chapter/organisation). So 3rd prize would be 1 book, 2nd prize 2 books, 1st prize 3 books, each up to a maximum price of (say) £30 per book. But that would be rather more complex to process than straightforward Amazon vouchers... Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 23:26, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
• Book Depository have free shipping worldwide, and as I recall are owned by Amazon (if that matters). Perhaps more workable? Iridia (talk) 01:56, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
• I've found two books I'd like. One won't be shipped via Amazon UK to the US; for the other the shipping fees are almost as much as the book cost, though the bookseller is located two states away. I'm thinking it might not be a bad idea to consider ABE Books - they're independent, worldwide, and offer gift vouchers. Just an idea. And thanks again, Wikipedia, for the voucher. Not complaining, just trying to figure it out. Truthkeeper (talk) 17:05, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

• Abebooks is a great idea - I've used them myself. As a business model are they more acceptable ethically than Amazon I wonder. Possibly - will ask Orangemike. Casliber (talk · contribs) 18:24, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

I'm surprised people are having this trouble with Amazon, & Abebooks may well be more flexible, though they also have UK and US sites. Is it worth asking Amazon if the UK vouchers can be cancelled & US ones issued? Johnbod (talk) 19:43, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

The booksellers assume that if the order is coming from the UK the book is being sent there, so if I order from the US, I automatically am charged the overseas rate although the book isn't going overseas. Truthkeeper (talk) 19:54, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

I've had the same issue as Truthkeeper - even when I specifically found books that were originating in (being shipped from) the US, the shipping fees were really high because Amazon UKs programming assumed that I was an overseas customer. AbeBooks would be cool, as long as we don't run into the same issue with UK vs. US sites. Another idea would be: If we decide to continue using Amazon, why not ask people if they would prefer Amazon US or Amazon UK, or some other Amazon? Then, whoever's handing out prizes can just log onto one site, say US, and send out vouchers to whoever wants them from there for the proper amount in the local currency, then log onto UK and do the same thing? Dana boomer (talk) 23:35, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

VA Level 1?

Personally I'd just like to see all the articles listed on Wikipedia:Vital articles/Level/1 be brought up to at least a GA status. Right now it's an embarrassment for Wikipedia. There are only 10 articles; how hard can it be? Regards, RJH (talk) 15:40, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

They are exactly the sort of articles we are worst at. Art's B class is dubious, imo; don't know abiout the others. Johnbod (talk) 15:42, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

You ask "how hard can it be"? The answer is extremely. These are probably the 10 most difficult articles on WP to write, because of their breadth, depth and, in some places, controversy. There was a drive a few months ago (a year ago?) to improve Science, which basically fizzled because editors burnt out, couldn't figure out where to start, how to divide up the research, what exactly should go in the article, etc., etc., etc. I think everyone here would like to see these articles improved. The problem is that, on WP, the further up the food chain you go, article-wise, the harder the articles are to both initially improve and later keep intact. However, perhaps we could have one of the editions of the contest focus just on Levels 1 and 2, and perhaps include a prize for best collaboration or something similar? Dana boomer (talk) 15:55, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

For seven of those 10 articles I wouldn't know where to start. For two others - history of the world and science - there are too many holes in my knowledge to do the sort of top-down improvement that those articles need. That leaves life. And yes, it would be that hard...knowing what to leave out is probably as difficult as knowing what to include. Worth it, maybe, but it's not the kind of thing you could do in, say, a month. Guettarda (talk) 18:16, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

I've contemplated tacking history of the world - it'd doable, I even have a decent amount of the sources I'd need and I could certainly find more sources easily enough, but ... it's a mammoth task. Right now, yes, things are "sourced" but there is no rhyme or reason to the information that is included and what is excluded. You'd need to read a number of "history of the world" books to see what the sources usually cover - and something on the vital 1 or 2 lists would need three months to get done right. It'd be an interesting "big" contest ... but probably not a good choice for the next run. Ealdgyth - Talk 18:21, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

I wonder if we could get a group together to do that, Ealdgyth... I'd certainly pitch in. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 07:01, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

Those articles might not be as hard as thought though, as one has to be more general than specific. The main issue is maintaining an interest. Science was definitely moving in the right direction and with a bit of enthusiasm could be not too far off GAN. Might need some thought on how to tackle them. Maybe a 5x multiplier at the wikicup or something....Casliber (talk · contribs) 22:46, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

These really big subject articles tend (like art and science) not to get as many views as the next level down, & should probably be kept fairly simple, with lots and lots of links - I suspect the readership is typically relatively unsophisticated. Johnbod (talk) 23:32, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

Well perhaps it's just me but I think they're entirely do-able. It's mostly a matter of performing the necessary scutwork to get them properly cited, cleaned up, organized and edited so they're interesting to read. We've managed it with one of these articles, Earth, and it's been done with much more challenging topics. For me the hard part is knowing what special interest topics to toss out and being willing to endure the types of "discussions" that can sometimes entail. I've been trying to get Life cleaned up and improved, but it's not really my particular area of interest so some of it would need a specialist's knowledge. I guess in that sense some elements of these articles can be difficult. Regards, RJH (talk) 05:00, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

Where are winners?

Looks like a fun contest: too bad I didn't know about it: I did a lot of work on a Vital article recently, and could have participated. BTW: I cannot find the list of prize winners (I did find the entries), you might want to create a more prominent link to that information. Also, it would be nice if (I'm sure you already thought of this) this were more integrated into FAC: my personal opinion is that WP needs to find some mechanism to motivate editors to work more on core/vital articles (vs rather obscure animals/sports teams/songs). This contest could be one such motivator, etc. --Noleander (talk) 18:03, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Listed at Wikipedia:The Core Contest/Winners - just realised the lack of a link...Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:23, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Just a suggestion, but the hat-noted rules/results from the previous competition are rather confusing. Perhaps the two contests should be separated and moved to their own pages/subpages? The Core Contest/Winners (for the original) and The Core Contest 2012/Winners (for the latest), for example? It will only become more confusing if/when future versions of the contest take place. María (yllosubmarine) 21:03, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Yes, it was all a dog's dinner; best to keep the main page just with the current/latest contest & archive older ones by year. Johnbod (talk) 21:08, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

I've always been a bit of a slob. I'll have a go at some housekeeping soon (of course any more obsessive editor is most welcome to reformat and reorganise in the meantime!) cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:38, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Announcement for next year

Please announce next year's contest prominently on Signpost, so more people can know about it (sorry if this was done this year, but I did not notice it). -- Ssilvers (talk) 21:19, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

I'll have that covered, no worries. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 01:13, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the award...

I've already ordered something that will help greatly - this book which I've been unable to find in the U.S. Great contest .. when are we doing it again? Ealdgyth - Talk 17:17, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Agree - thank you very much for setting this up, Cas, and to Wikimedia UK for subsidizing the prizes. It's a little frustrating that the vouchers can only be used on Amazon UK, but other than that, no complaints. Dana boomer (talk) 15:54, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

That shouldn't make any difference vs your local Amazon - you should be able to order from anywhere. Thanks for mine also. Johnbod (talk) 16:44, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Actually it says not valid for amazon.com, .de, .fr etc., so I gather I'll either have to go with ebooks or pay shipping from the UK. Still, not complaining, I'm thrilled to have gotten the voucher. And there are plenty of useful sources that I can get as a Kindle book. Guettarda (talk) 17:22, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, I sent a message to Amazon, and they said that vouchers for Amazon UK can only be used there - they can't be transferred to any of the other ones (US, Germany, France, etc). But, I second what Guettarda says - I'm trilled to have received the voucher. Dana boomer (talk) 17:56, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

No, about half the books on Amazon UK are from US suppliers & you should only pay the postage applicable to the actual delivery address, which can be anywhere. Johnbod (talk) 18:14, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

I was also pleased with my voucher. I have not purchased anything from Amazon before but I have just ordered 5 used bargain books on biology, zoology and marine invertebrates which should keep me well supplied with information for a while. Roll on the next contest! Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:08, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

I'm thinking August....

Right folks, I am thinking of running it again in August, which is long enough away so we can (a) get it in the Signpost once or twice (b) figure out who to nag to stump up the prizes (I'll ask a couple of wikimedia projects), and (c) figure out who the judges will be.

In choosing judges, I was keen to get a mix of folks - was initially aiming for four but gave up after I found three (most folks would rather enter). My rationale for asking Sue Gardner was to raise her familiarity with at least a look-see at article improvement, and get an feel for where we're at with our Core Articles as well as Featured Articles. I asked Brian as someone who has a focus on articles in a different area to me (and 'cos he's more thorough than me). I'll double check how they're going for free time and if they're happy doing it again, and if anyone else feels an overwhelming urge to judge they can post or email me :) Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:39, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

I suppose if you can't find someone else, I can judge this next round. But... i insist on only judging once... Ealdgyth - Talk 22:31, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

I'll ask Brian and Sue in the first instance and we can see where it goes from there. Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:33, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Re Signpost, give me a firm date and I'll put it in "News and notes" next week. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 07:13, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Ok, first thing is ensuring someone is stumping up for the prizes - I am prioritising sorting that out - once done I will set the dates, most likely Aug 1st-31st run time, followed by judging in September. Casliber (talk · contribs) 08:07, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

That was poorly worded by me. Let's try that again: let me know when you have a firm date – I understand you have many other things to work out first! – and I'll include it. :-) Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 08:21, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Prizes, which BTW I'm not overly interested in, should be given in the currency used where the recipient lives, not somewhere else, which seems to have happened last time.PumpkinSky talk 01:56, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

If you like, let me know when you've got dates/information, and I'll send it out in the WikiCup newsletter. J Milburn (talk) 10:16, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Terrific/thanks, yes once I firm up sponsorship it'll be all systems go. Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:13, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Right, thunderbirds are go! It'll run over August 1st to 31st (nice round month, seemed weird to end it on August 28th....) - I'll be intrigued to see what difference an extra week makes. So Ed, J Milburn, we have a firm date. I'm waiting on a reply from the other judges to see if we'll have the same lineup again. Casliber (talk · contribs) 19:22, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Noted- I'll be sure to advertise! J Milburn (talk) 19:29, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Same, I'll put it in News and notes for this week. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 19:45, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Great, guys. All ideas on where else to post much appreciated. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 19:55, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Anywhere and everywhere. :-) Notes on the talk pages of major WikiProjects would be a good idea, if you haven't thought of it. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 03:11, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

page format

• Page format needs to be tweaked for smaller monitors. Email me if you want screenshots; I don't wanna burden Wikipedia by uploading the images... Tks – Ling.Nut (talk) 06:48, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Aaah, interesting. I've rejigged it now. Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:45, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

• Yes, that's much better... Tks! – Ling.Nut (talk) 02:57, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

August contest

Only 2 weeks to go - time to start the publicity barrage. And for heaven's sake lets just start a fresh page this time for The Core Contest, August 2012, not leave it mixed up with the old ones. Then you can get rules, entries, comments and prizes all on one page. Johnbod (talk) 15:26, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

I hadn't thought of that.....ok. Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:13, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Right, cleared detritus off the page so it is clearer now. Now to spam.....Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:08, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Add some more articles for consideration..

Interesting contest. I was wondering if its possible to include 175 English WP core articles that Meta deemed in need of improvement.

• m:List of Wikipedias by sample of articles/Stubs#en English
• m:List of Wikipedias by sample of articles/Articles#en English

Also, willing to add to the prizes for the winner. But not sure what is currently planned. --MarsRover (talk) 20:16, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Interesting selection - these are articles extant in over 100 wikipedias? Yes, a case could be made for improving them definitely.......see criteria for choosing articles. The prize booty at the moment is 250 pounds in vouchers to be distributed among the winners. Additions/pooling welcome :))) Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:37, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

The first list looks very out of date. 2 I looked at are in fact now C's, & Anatomy was a GA nom in 2007. What does the 2nd list represent? Johnbod (talk) 14:02, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

The first bunch are all the Meta list of articles below 10k characters length (excluding interwiki links and comments). The "Stubs" articles are akin to "C" article here. And the other list are articles between 10k and 30k characters. The remainding EN.WP articles are greater than 30k and are not considered in need of improvement. So, both the list of articles and criteria are a bit different but they should still be core articles in need of improvement.

Casliber, I'll try to email you directly. I am in the US so hopefully a handful of dollars doesn't turn into a trival amount of pounds. --MarsRover (talk) 16:50, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Considered by who? Frankly what these lists represent is as clear as mud. Johnbod (talk) 17:18, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

MarsRover, there are no hard and fast rules over the inclusion criteria of articles, but article broadness counts for alot, so rock, sorghum, anatomy, dictatorship, Information technology, Song and equation are on the original list for the contest at Wikipedia:The Core Contest/Articles (funnily enough behaviour and prose aren't, large intestine isn't but Colon (anatomy) is...hmmm. Thought-provoking anyway. I'll look into these later today. Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:49, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

PS: I'll ask the original creator Black Kite (talk · contribs) where that list came from. Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:50, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

I'd chosen an article to do, time permitting and all, which is on the second list and I see some bios and others that I recognize from one of our lists, so there is some overlap. Truthkeeper (talk) 21:01, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, there will be a lot of overlap. My suggestion was the "difference" would be additional articles that can be improved. Also, I am not about to argue "large intestine" is better than "colon" just that both should be worthy articles to improve.

As for Johnbod's question, "considered by who?" the Meta list is edited by a dozen or so people in different countries so there probably is the same peer review going as this list. And the automatic logic that deems various articles in need of improvement was created by the now absent vo:User:Smeira in 2007. The evaluation is entirely based on the size of the article. So, these lists are clearly articles several people thought were important but have less than 10k and 30k of content. --MarsRover (talk) 22:57, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Aah ok, the ones I've seen are eminently sensible suggestions - I'll see what Black Kite has to say as well.. Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:41, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

I would suggest some explanation explaining where the pages come from & how they got there on the pages themselves. Johnbod (talk) 01:11, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

Yes, very simply the original page Wikipedia:The Core Contest/Articles was a database dump from 2007 which basically gave a list of pages which fell into the following categories; (a) rated Top-Importance by a WikiProject and (b) rated currently (at that time) B-Class or below. Obviously a large number of those may not fall into those categories any more, especially the second one. Also, clearly, a huge number of important articles will not be in that list because (a) they've been created since then (b) they were never rated by their Project, or (c) They don't fall into a category covered by a Project. Black Kite (talk) 22:59, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

Well, do we want to update the list somehow before the next contest (Not the one coming up in August, but after that..) Ealdgyth - Talk 23:54, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

You'll get some truly wierd results if you do & use the same criteria. I've seen small projects, for countries etc, with over 100 top-imp articles, many stubs. At visual arts & some other projects we don't use the Importance scales at all. I'm not sure how many people use any of the lists to pick an article - I look at the "most popular pages" in my project for something truly dire. Johnbod (talk) 00:16, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

I think the original dump was trimmed (presumably by Danny, although I don't know) before it was published. Black Kite (talk) 00:23, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

I would assume we'd not use a dump, but go by something like the multipliers that Wikicup uses along with human editing... Ealdgyth - Talk 00:59, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Yes, (incidentally I found a Wikipedia:WikiProject_Military_history/Assessment#Statistics - i.e. note lack of importance rating (hence no gun or soldier on Danny's list...) :P .....Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:10, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

But seriously, I think common sense is good enough for now WRT judging breadth of articles, but certainly when (if) we run this again I think we'll redo the article pools. This is one reason why I liked the short timespan and not-huge amounts of money, to keep it upbeat and fun. But I had dinner with Tony1 the other night who said we should ramp up the prize money next time....Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:10, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

• More specifically, Ed17 was thinking about battlecruiser....which left me wondering its broadness compared with tank...or lettuce or Romanticism for that matter.... ("The Lettuce and Battlecruiser"...sounds like a good name for an English pub...) Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:12, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Pop culture apart, I look at the viewing stats for a sense of significance, or something, which can give unexpected results. For example Romanticism, at 94K in last 30 days, gets nearly as many as Art (110K). In Northern hemisphere term time it actually gets more: in April '12 it was Romanticism 180K vs Art 103K, so probably is the more viewed over any 12 month period. Battlecruiser got 16K in the last 30 days (April 22K), and Lettuce 46K. On a tactical competition note Battlecruiser looks a pretty strong C class already, and hard to make a major improvement to. As in many areas the place to find weak articles in Milhist is the Middle Ages! Medieval naval warfare redirects to one long paragraph with 2 refs. But milhist tends not be used for school homework, which is undoubtedly where a lot of Romanticism's views come from. Tank had 74K in April, 66K last 30 days. Johnbod (talk) 13:10, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Just a thought

This is a nice idea. I suggest it should be run monthly. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 16:20, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Like a retail sales event, there should be some down time so that participants can take a breather, and go back to writing articles about little known hamlets, curiosities of taxonomy, and the foibles of celebrities. ;^)

Binksternet (talk) 17:13, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

There is considerable discussion on frequency and a poll (now complete I think) above, and we seem to be aiming at 3-4 contests a year, which seems about right for now. Johnbod (talk) 19:55, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

I'd really worry that monthly would lead to burnout. Plus these articles are often labour-intensive. For mine, the best value is if it really gives a big shove towards GA and then FA (which takes time) and the momentum then continues and we get core articles to Stable Versions (i.e. GA or (better) FA). This will liekly be the same editors who have nommed here, so I like the idea of downtime to tidy up and do other stuff before weighing in with another big effort. I find big articles very enjoyable but one really needs focus, energy and downtime....Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:23, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

I can see an argument for non-monthly, but I am not sure I believe in such burn out. Is there anyone here who can attest they got burned out after a while? I've been writing articles for 8 years and never really got bored yet :)Also, work on core articles does not stop when the core contest stop. My work on Marie Curie was completely coincidental with regards to the Core Contest, yet I became more motivated when I heard that Core team appreciates it. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 16:27, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

(belatedly) I find that big articles can be pretty gruelling affairs, so I personally like the idea of downtime in between (and also to tidy up pushing some articles to GA/FA). But we will have another discussion like the one above after the conclusion of this one. Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:20, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Quite frankly I think it's bloody hard, but I might be the only person who thinks so. Also, I think a month is a bit too long - the 3 weeks that the last contest lasted seemed about right. I am burned out. Truthkeeper (talk) 22:08, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

I've certainly also experienced burnout - but I'm not sure its a good argument for not having the competition every month - noone is forced to enter, and I'd probably simply only enter every three or four months.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 22:25, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, agree. But I still think a month is too long. Two to three weeks of each month would be the way to go. And more pages might get done. Truthkeeper (talk) 22:32, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Makes sense with three weeks competition and a week for judging and rebooting the competition each month.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 22:56, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

I thought a month would allow a couple of bursts of editing - say early and later in the month with a rest in the middle to digest and think about things (and maybe visit the library etc.) - my thinking is that GA at a minimum represents a stable version of sorts so was a good goal for the 'pedia to have numbers of core articles upgraded to GA status - question is, does a four week timeframe offer much advantage over a three week one...? Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:36, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

A month is usually enough time to provide editors who have competing demands on their attention to take part in this contest. If we shorten the contest we will force out some of the participants. A month is a good length. Binksternet (talk) 00:00, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

I agree (I think I was the first to propose a calendar month); as someone who changed their mind mid-month & only began on the final article on the 16th I think a month is right, and it's certainly easier to remember. People work at different paces & have different amounts of time to spare, not to mention (especially in August) travel etc. Some people have busy times of the month and slower ones, and so on. But I wouldn't join in every month. This one, with decent publicity, has gone really well so far, with some really big topics being tackled, so I'm softening on frequency - if we could get a decent turnout every month I'd say do it, but maybe ease into that gently, with ones in say October and December (a bad month for some, a good one for others), & see how they went. Personally I like this contest as an alternative way of doing things to GA & FA, & have no intention of pushing any of my entries up to those. If we take seriously the FA criteria requirement 1c that FAs are: "well-researched: it is a thorough and representative survey of the relevant literature" (which in practice is relaxed or ignored for big topics, & often not much examined at FAC anyway), then really big topics like Language, Transport, Information technology or Sculpture are pretty much ruled out for FA, which has always been the view of some like User:Iridescent. Johnbod (talk) 13:15, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

I am not so dubious about those articles being impossible for FA, but agree the chances of some big structural, comprehensiveness or weighting problems rises dramatically as an article scope broadens...Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:17, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Cool

Hello,

never heard of this contest before! I guess Dostoyevsky does not count anymore? Regards.--Kürbis (✔) 11:39, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

? - is it not in the bigger list? ...yes it is under 'F' Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:23, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

I mean, I can not add this article which I started in May? Regards.--Kürbis (✔) 17:54, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Aah I see - you are welcome to enter improvements done in the month of August only - this is sorta like a one-month "flash mob" type improvement....cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:23, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. Are translations from other wikis allowed? Regards.--Kürbis (✔) 20:32, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Yes. All improvements are considered, including improvements that have their source in a translation from another language. Binksternet (talk) 20:41, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Winners announced...

See - Wikipedia:The Core Contest/Winners Casliber (talk · contribs) 15:27, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Where can we read the judges deliberations? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 17:15, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Judges' deliberations are offline, conducted by email. I will not give any details but there was a vigorous debate about a handful of the entries to determine the winner. Remaining or introduced flaws were pointed out, and improvements were compared to see what gave the wiki the greatest increase in value. Binksternet (talk) 17:27, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

"Vigorous debate"? That must have been interesting ;-) PumpkinSky talk 21:15, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

If you went to all that trouble, can we expect that the "Remaining or introduced flaw" will be posted publicly, so the articles can be improved? If somebody reviewed my article, I would be interested in learning what they thought was done well, and what wasn't. (And frankly, the lack of transparency in this contest is disappointing. I am sure there was no foul play - and I want to thank the judges for volunteering to help out - but wikis should be transparent; few exceptions can be understood (ArbCom...), but I simply don't see the need for lack of transparency here). I would like to ask for the relevant discussions to be made public, on wiki (feel free to take some time to remove any personal identifiers and off topic comments, if needed), and I would like to suggest that in the future, all such discussions should be public as well (just like Wikipedia:Peer review and similar processes are). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 21:18, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Few if any judges would volunteer if the process was 100% transparent. Feelings run high and the judges would be in danger of making ten enemies for one editor praised.

On the other hand, all of the judges worked very hard to analyze the entries in the manner of a peer review, and that analysis certainly could be put forward to help advance the article. If nothing else, each judge could make suggestions on the relevant article talk pages, if the observed problems have not been cleared since the contest. More formally, a transparent peer review foundation could be added to the contest.

I think the final subjective judging process should be conducted offline. Binksternet (talk) 23:48, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

See User_talk:Casliber#Don.27t_release_CORE_deliberations. Releasing deliberations would be disasterous. Providing constructive feedback is ok. I don't need it, I'm almost ready for FAC.PumpkinSky talk

Releasing the old deliberations could lead to drama, yes. Too late for that. But in the future, deliberations should be public. I don't care about the prize (if I got it, I'd have likely donated it back to WMF), but I do care about feedback. I hoped to get some feedback from this (I am fine with constructive criticism), instead I got nothing. Nada. Zero. Just a generic template that my article was not as good as others, apparently, for reasons secret and unknown. If I knew this, I'd have simply declined the nomination of my article for this, as all I got from it was some wasted time on meta discussions like this one. (But as long as I am here, congrats to all who won, I am sure you did a splendid job, and thanks to organizers and judges, who tried to do well, even if, IMHO, the execution needs refinement; better luck to everyone next time). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 19:57, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps your concerns would be addressed in the future by the creation of a special peer review page for each article, a page that would serve as a discussion among judges about the strengths and weaknesses of each article. That way each contestant's work would have feedback, beginning immediately after the month of the contest. The final comparison between articles would continue to be held offline by email between the judges. Binksternet (talk) 20:38, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

That sounds worth trying out, it would be the most useful reform. For addressing the transparency, I'd still prefer for the article scores to be made public, although to prevent dramu (sigh) I guess they could be anonymous (either averages would be reported for the article, or for each anonymous judge). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 22:06, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

One of the reasons I decided to split the prizes the way I did was to keep this upbeat and fun. It is really hard (like comparing apples to oranges) to weigh up greater/lesser improvements of narrower/broader articles. By giving out a few and having a fairly flat difference between first and third, I really wanted to make it a celebration/sharing experience. I was having dinner with Tony1 the other night who was suggesting we have a big prize sometime of, say, $1000 or something equivalent. I'd worry we'd really have to tighten up the scoring and maybe make it more objective I dunno. I was really pleased with alot of work I saw and it was nervewrackingly hard to decide some. I think we can give some more specific tips to help editors punt articles into GA or FA territory, but am loth to compare them with each other openly. Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:38, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Hi Cas, honestly I found this round of the contest less fun than the March contest for a variety of reasons. That said, I had no idea the purpose was to get to GA/FA. On a hot day in August I chose to write about a cool place. I chose to tackle a topic about which I know almost nothing, and as far as the geology and biology sections are concerned, less than nothing. But I thought it was a worthy encyclopedic topic and the page needed work. So I worked on it. I don't think it's finished enough, comprehensive enough, or polished enough to take to review. Unfortunately real life has intervened in a big way and I'm editing very little at the this time, but maybe some day I'll get back to The Alps. (Thanks btw to Yoman for creating the redirect!) If anyone wants the deliberations to be made public, that would be fine with me. If anyone feels the final decision is wrong, I have no problem with having the prize rescinded. Thanks, Truthkeeper (talk) 01:01, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

The purpose isn't to get to GA/FA (I think it actually specifically says this somewhere in the Contest subpages). I think it's just that once one gets done working up an article for the contest, it's usually pretty close to at least GA standards. So, a lot of people (including me) end up with an article that goes through at least one review process. I also don't think that anyone's having an issue with the final decision...or at least that hasn't been my reading of any of the pertinent comments. You did a great job on that article, and I wish we had a few dozen like that entered in each contest. Overall, I think this contest, even just with two recent incarnations, has done a great job of improving what were previously some very poor core articles...which is what it was designed to do. The fact that many of them end up at GA/FA is just an added bonus. Dana boomer (talk) 01:14, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Congrats to the winners! I had a good time participating in the contest, and it was fun to see the improvements that could be made in a short period of time. If anyone has feedback on further work that could be done, I would appreciate hearing it! Canada Hky (talk) 02:55, 5 October 2012 (UTC)