Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:The Core Contest/2021 archive

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Improvement drive for highly-visible physics articles

[edit]

Following the example of the Core Contest, over at WikiProject Physics we decided to try something similar: Wikipedia:WikiProject Physics/Contest. Any suggestions on how to promote it would be much appreciated! XOR'easter (talk) 17:16, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Revival

[edit]

I'd like to revive this, as a lot of core content is still not developed or outdated / bloated. Pinging the 2017 judges Casliber, Megalibrarygirl, Rodw.

I've two ideas how to tweak the rules

  • No support for the evils of Amazon. Not sure whether we want to offer monetary incentive at all, as this may crowd out volunteer enthusiasm.
  • Maybe not specifically disallowing FAs. We could even ask folks at WP:URFA/2020 to identify core articles is grave disrepair

What do you think :)? FemkeMilene (talk) 19:59, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think I was a previous judge for this.— Rod talk 20:01, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
That's strange; you are noted on the main page.. Who was the third judge then? Of course you're welcome to help anyway FemkeMilene (talk) 20:05, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Femkemilene, Was it maybe Ritchie333? Megalibrarygirl (talk) 20:35, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It may be coming back that I looked at a few of these, but don't really remember what was required. What do you need & what possible dates as I am likely to have no internet for a few weeks ( a boat trip once we are allowed to travel again)?— Rod talk 21:57, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
the third judge was originally Katherine Maher after I asked her at Berlin meetup in 2017..however she didn't end up judging which took some time to confirm, so we got a 3rd judge after some delay just to look at top entries. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:21, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(sounds of rustling of dusty wiki-papers in the wiki-attic) aaalright, I revived this and have done the heavy lifting. The Amazon idea was so that it was not monetary yet versatile. WMUK gave us the £250 grants to disperse. If not Amazon, then we can make it a mail-order supplier of the person's choice maybe? Some sort of book repository? Is Abebooks still a thing? Hehehe...@Femkemilene: do you wanna take part as a judge or constestant? Game plan is (a) figure where the grant will come from and in what form, (b) get it accepted, with about a month's advertising and BANG off and running. Easy peasy. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 22:50, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Additionally - my own view is that WMF has lots of money swimming about and lots of quite poor people donate truckloads of time. I think some sort of physical gesture of appreciation is really nice. I spent part of my youth really poor and it sucked. A small gift can really brighten someone's day. Maybe wiki-merchandise if that's still a thing. dunno. Will try to ping as many folks as I remember jus to rustle up some discussion....throw some ideas about...yoohoo @Amakuru:...@Ealdgyth:...@Johnbod:...@Andrew Gray:....@Binksternet:..@Maunus:....@Guettarda:...@The Squirrel Conspiracy:...@Cwmhiraeth:...@Worm That Turned:...@MasterOfHisOwnDomain:...ummm..anyone can alert anyone else they think might be interested. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 23:03, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I think this is a great idea, and I'm happy to contribute in whatever way I can. I think a Rapid Grant application would be great, and a range of possible prizes. I agree with Cas that a prize can be great, especially for people who don't have much money. (My budget was incredibly tight when I won, and the prize let me spend some money on books at a time when I couldn't justify any luxuries.) Guettarda (talk) 00:29, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I think a revival would be great. I agree with Cas and Guettarda on the cash prizes, which have always been modest. The "bang per buck" effect must be far larger than for almost any other WMF/WMUK projects. I think the basic format works well, but more publicity, especially after some years away, would be good. I'm doubtful I'd compete myself now. Johnbod (talk) 04:27, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Seems like a good idea to me. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:08, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Lovely to see this enthusiasm :)! I'm willing to be a judge.
That Rapid Grant application seems easy enough, so I can do that. It would take about a month to get it accepted, so that would push the contest to June 1 - July 15 if we start advertising after acceptance. The minimum grant is $500. However, it's probably easier to ask the UK chapter again (took them 10 days last time), so that would allow for a competition completely before the summer holidays: May 15-June 30, with a maximum grant of 250 pounds.
Abebooks has been eaten by Amazon. A previously funded Grant request gave out money directly (via Paypal), which seems acceptable to me. (If I were a contestant, I would want to win a huge framed featured picture, but that's probably just me).
In terms of publicity, I was thinking a banner for a week (no idea how to do that), leaving talk page messages for previous contenders, hyping it during virtual meet ups (I attend the UK ones), and hyping via Discord. More venues possible? Signpost also comes to mind. FemkeMilene (talk) 09:24, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Great! Happy for you to be a judge. We've traditionally had three judges. Some folks were a bit cool on the idea of cash as such (but now ehtically preferable to Amazon maybe...pity about Abebooks..). Might see what other folks think. Hey @Johnbod: and @Megalibrarygirl: ...do either of you wanna be a judge this time? Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:14, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
If there isn't any objection, I'll ask for a grant at WMUK tomorrow. FemkeMilene (talk) 15:54, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Am very happy you did that. Am sorta slammed by RL at present (adulting can be no fun sometimes..). Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:31, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'm ok to judge (also ok for someone else to...). Johnbod (talk) 23:06, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Cas Liber, good luck with the adulting. Let me know if I can do things.
@Johnbod: Great to hear! FemkeMilene (talk) 16:53, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yay :), the grant has been approved. May 15 will be a bit too early, shall we start June 1? FemkeMilene (talk) 20:03, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Great - well done! Yes, but we should start publicising it well before (now or almost now). Watchlist notice, Signpost, pump, FAC, GAN, etc. Also the most active wikiprojects perhaps. Anywhere else?? Johnbod (talk) 23:19, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The Discord server. WMUK has also indicated they want to publicize it on their blog. I'll make a start with wikiprojects, Discord and GAN. Casliber, do you want to do Signpost? I don't understand the procedures there. FemkeMilene (talk) 07:47, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
There's also the WMF blog, wherever that live (though I doubt many of the right people read it). Johnbod (talk) 14:45, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'll get cracking on a signpost. June 1 as start date sounds prudent. Next question - we've run this over four or six weeks in the past....what do folks feel now? Four makes it a neat month, six allows for real buffing for GA/FAC.....I could go either way. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 22:55, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
As you say. I have a slight preference for 6 (which is what the page says at the moment). Johnbod (talk) 02:57, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Slight preference for 6 as well :). FemkeMilene (talk) 07:30, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
(puts on best Cockney accent) ..orright guv'nors, six it is then :) Cas Liber (talk · contribs)

Should we swap the Wikipedia:The_Core_Contest/Articles for most-viewed top 300?

[edit]

Our core contest list is outdated, and biased towards the US and EU. I just tried to update it a bit.. The list of vital articles doesn't seem to have that problem much, and seems to be a better starting point for selecting articles.

I was wondering if we could switch the list of core articles out for the most-viewed articles of 2020 (shorter periods would be too ephemeral). Say the top 300. This may reduce an academic bias, which I feel is present in the vital list. FemkeMilene (talk) 15:53, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'd strongly oppose restricting entries to either the vital articles (House, Cooking) or the 300 most viewed (pop stars, actors, Pornhub). As before, we should just ask for articles on any serious and reasonably broad topic that's in a much worse state than it should be, & lightly vet the subjects first. Recent contests pretty much ignored the list, which I don't think was ever mandatory - I'd forgotten all about it. I don't think it has been updated - Gustav Mahler has been an FA since 2010 (& so should be removed). Johnbod (talk) 02:52, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed—the list of pages per views contains far too many articles that were only exceptionally popular for the year in question. Using the WP:VIT3 list to give ideas might be helpful, but I suspect that everyone would find it easiest to propose their own article choice for the judge's approval. Aza24 (talk) 06:02, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that the vital list and a secondary list are for inspiration, and that people should propose other exciting articles.
That said, the core list isn't great. What about if I create a list of articles that have been in the top X consistently over a period of N years? FemkeMilene (talk) 06:36, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
For inspirational purposes, such a list might be helpful. I wouldn't worry too much about the messiness that is the current "core list", perhaps put a {{Historical}} on it? Aza24 (talk) 06:45, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Right - we haven't used that list for some time IIRC (apologies to Black Kite, Sophie means wisdom, Harej, UtherSRG and Kpalion all of whom added to it early) - we'd end up finding lots of broad articles that weren't on the list and equally as "core"y. Then IIRC PresN (talk · contribs) objected to all core/vital classifications as arbitrary and said we should just go on how many different language wikipedias an article existed on. Which I think was an equally if not more valid method than any other way we had (need to find the discussion) Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 09:14, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I recall having an opinion like that years back in regards to the Wikicup; I'm not sure that really solves the problem of trying to curate a list of "important" articles without bias, though I think it's a better metric than pageviews, which can be very ephemeral. I'd go with the VIT3 list, since it gets ongoing attention. --PresN 13:07, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

One more thought, the core contest has been qualitative not quantitative in its approach, so what's happened in old contests is that a contestant has said, "Hey I reckon this article is pretty broad and not covered in the core or vital list" and I've generally agreed and they've just run with it. @Femkemilene:, rather than make yet another page of articles, feel free to go hell-for-leather on the Wikipedia:The_Core_Contest/Articles page - in essence, the page is only defined by its relevance to this contest so hoing into it is totally fine. That way there is one fewer page for people to draw inspiration from. I'd keep it from being proscriptive and just have as a guide that broader articles carry more weight than narrower/more esoteric ones Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:26, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, and other key attributes for a good "core" choice are that the article is currently really in need of improvement, and also gets a decent number of views, given its context. We want to avoid the immaculate FA's that only get a handful of daily views. Johnbod (talk) 20:55, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@PresN: = I have some memory of you criticising Wikipedia:Vital articles/Level/1 (???), and I'm looking at this list thinking, "who the hell came up with these as top 10 vital articles and (more importantly) who looks at them??" Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:26, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The WP:VIT3 is really the heart of the five lists (hence why WP:VA and WP:VITAL redirect there), and has had the most thorough organization on from the talk page. Aza24 (talk) 20:33, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I also recall User:West.andrew.g/Popular pages Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 23:30, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
At {{Core topics}}, there's a collection of various lists on this sort of thing. Aza24 (talk) 23:45, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Right then, @Femkemilene:, what you wanna do with the Wikipedia:The_Core_Contest/Articles? Overhaul it or dispense with it and just use VIT3 list? I have no strong opinions either way. They were never meant to be proscriptive lists anyway and we accepted and valued many suggestions "outside the box(es)" Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:32, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Just use the VIT3 list, with a link to {{core topics}} for inspiration. FemkeMilene (talk) 16:15, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I've set up a proposal at VIT3 to pauses changes to the list around the contest timeline, so it's stable for that time (it has had a lot of changes recently). Hopefully it helps Aza24 (talk) 16:48, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Welp never mind on that... Aza24 (talk) 18:11, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If anyone wants hints...

[edit]

There are a lot of high importance law articles that are in terrible shape. For example, criminal law, Civil law (common law), Civil law (legal system), prosecutor, etc. Also, the article diplomacy needs a LOT of work. (t · c) buidhe 21:16, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Question on the entry process

[edit]

So, please excuse my ignorance, I'm a little confused on the entry process. As I understand it, articles are submitted before/at the beginning of the contest at Wikipedia:The Core Contest/Entries, but then the same entries are again edited later to show improvements and such. So in a sense participants are submitting "twice", right? And for the initial/first entry, what are we putting, just a reason why we picked the article and things we could think of improving? I only ask because the Sample Entry is just an example of how to submit the final product. I almost wonder if there should be two sections; one for initial nominations and one for final submissions—or maybe I'm just over-complicating it? Aza24 (talk) 18:49, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

In the past there's just been one section per entry - at the start you say you're going to do a topic, and the judges comment on the choice (usually). At the end you come back and add the diffs to before and after. I think it's worked fine so far. Johnbod (talk) 02:29, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Which articles are eligible?

[edit]

The link from the project page goes through to the Level 3 vital articles page, while also encouraging people to tackle a level 1 or 2 for extra kudos. But are entries on the level 4 page also eligible? Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 09:24, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely, & also those that have escaped the "Vital articles" dragnet entirely. See discussions above. Each chosen article is assessed individually against what we are looking for. Johnbod (talk) 14:40, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Most of level 4 is still very much core. In my opinion, level 4 does have a few articles that are borderline core. Which articles are you thinking? FemkeMilene (talk) 16:05, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'm considering working on Kampala, capital city of Uganda, just because it's something I'd been vaguely thinking of doing in the next couple of months anyway. Obviously not as core as Furniture or Earth, but still the sort of article that every encyclopedia should have. Thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 16:18, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
That's still core in my book :). FemkeMilene (talk) 16:33, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Certainly core enough. It is averaging 790 views a day, which is good, but on a quick look may lack the ideal degree of current crapness, making it harder to improve dramatically. There are 74 references, some used multiple times, but the majority are web sources. Lusaka and Monrovia are worse. But it could be a contender. No architecture section. Johnbod (talk) 17:12, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
As I've said before, my take on it is that the lists were never meant to be proscriptive and it always amazes me when people find really broad articles that have not been mentioned on anyone's core/vital/essential list. Given how narrow most FA nominees are, there is huge scope here. Any large city is a big plus to get buffed IMHO. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 21:43, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
What would you think of Dili? It is by far the worst Southeast Asian capital article, in an even worse state than the aforementioned Lusaka and Monrovia. It is of course, not a "large" city, and squeaks only into the level 5 vital list. CMD (talk) 09:01, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
237 views a day, 17 references, & it is a national capital. Good sources might be harder to find perhaps. Johnbod (talk) 13:03, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah looks okay to me. All relative. If other folks pick bigger cities then we just weigh things up....Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 03:03, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Johnbod: talking of crapness, I decided to have a look at what else is out there and I discovered Lusaka. The honchos at the level-4 vital project have rated it a C, ahead of Lilongwe's "start" class, but it's in fact only half the size, and looks supremely crap to me. The history is just four very short paragraphs, while Economy consists of a grand total of one sentence (unsourced) which reads "Lusaka is home to the largest and most numerous shopping centres in the country, including Manda Hill, Levy Junction, EastPark, Cosmopolitan, and the smaller but well-known Arcade Shopping Centre." It also has the advantage (for what it's worth) that I've been there myself and know some people who've lived there. Tempting!  — Amakuru (talk) 16:23, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
What do you think of British West Indies? It was historically important, the beginnings of the British Empire (and the source of so much of the wealth the drove the Industrial Revolution), and the driver of so much of the horrors of slavery. It was a significant theatre of most major European wars since the 1600s. And the article does not reflect any of that. Guettarda (talk) 16:11, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
History of the British West Indies is the obvious place for most of that, at least in terms of a big expansion, and initially. It has 2 notes & gets 36 views per day, which isn't many; no doubt fewer than the subject deserves. Plenty of room for expansion though. I'm not sure that and the main British West Indies could not be merged? They aren't really a contemporary unit, are they? I think we should start the competition page now, so people can ask about poswsible topics there rather than here. Johnbod (talk) 16:32, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Johnbod. I spent a while looking at those two pages and trying to figure out why we need both. I think an initial upmerge would make sense. Guettarda (talk) 16:43, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The competition page is already up: Wikipedia:The Core Contest/Entries :). FemkeMilene (talk) 16:50, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, thanks - let's start using it then. Only 2 weeks to go .... Johnbod (talk) 17:01, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A question

[edit]

Could someone generate a list of the most viewed Wikipedia articles that are, say, start class or less? Presumably articles of interest to swathes of readers would be important ones to get right for our reputation. (Therefore suitable candidates for the comp).--Coin945 (talk) 18:36, 23 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That is a very good idea....surely must be possible but am not tech-savvy in the area. Question is who...Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 05:33, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know how to do it for Wikipedia in general, but individual WikiProjects do have a list you can sort this way: Category:Lists of popular pages by WikiProject.
For instance Handmaiden is the most-viewed stub/start article one for the Feminism WikiProject, Ron DeSantis in politics, Friday Night Funkin' in the videogames Wikiproject. FemkeMilene (talk) 16:09, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, though you have to be careful with these - take Ron DeSantis: his article looks under-classed to me, & I've reclassed to "B"". A high proportion of classes are undergraded. Plus, these are his long-term views. Once he's out of office these are likely to drop like a stone. He won pretty narrowly in 2018 and "The 2022 Florida gubernatorial election will take place on November 8, 2022". I've regraded Handmaiden to start - arguably it should redirect to maid & there's not much to say about the term imo. Johnbod (talk) 16:31, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Ask at WP:RAQ. Izno (talk) 17:22, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've made a request at WP:RAQ (didn't know that existed before, so thanks Izno!). I've made a specific request to avoid articles with spikes (i.e. adding to the database query a standard deviation for the day to day views to fall within) which should weed out those that are only popular due to recentism or from specific news stories.--Coin945 (talk) 15:46, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Partial list of widely-visited stub/start articles

[edit]
Extended content

More entries from Wikipedia:Vital articles/Popular pages--Coin945 (talk) 22:17, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    • 242 Postmodernism 108,554 3,618 Start Unknown
    • 270 Dysentery 99,125 3,304 Start Unknown
    • 371 Electromagnetic radiation 72,893 2,429 Start Unknown
    • 532 Newton (unit) 48,651 1,621 Start Unknown
    • 599 Sorghum 41,918 1,397 Start Unknown
    • 654 Manufacturing 35,735 1,191 Start Unknown
    • 672 Finance 34,221 1,140 Start Unknown
    • 739 Man 28,737 957 Start Unknown
    • 746 Wheel 28,404 946 Start Unknown
    • 771 Vehicle 26,143 871 Start Unknown
    • 773 Civil and political rights 25,851 861 Start Unknown
    • 781 Salt (chemistry) 25,429 847 Start Unknown
    • 783 Chemical compound 25,127 837 Start Unknown
    • 784 Prism 25,064 835 Start Unknown
    • 798 Magazine 23,010 767 Start Unknown
    • 803 Monism 22,568 752 Start Unknown
    • 822 Theism 20,872 695 Start Unknown
    • 846 Goods 19,240 641 Start Unknown
    • 847 Tool 19,237 641 Start Unknown
    • 858 Humus 17,976 599 Start Unknown
    • 876 Thought 15,093 503 Start Unknown
    • 880 Line (geometry) 14,681 489 Start Unknown
    • 882 Reductionism 13,924 464 Start Unknown
    • 884 Inclined plane 13,123 437 Start Unknown
    • 893 Dome 11,597 386 Start Unknown
    • 895 Civics 10,805 360 Start Unknown
    • 899 Crust (geology) 8,462 282 Start Unknown
    • 901 Industry (economics) 7,723 257 Start Unknown
    • 915 Shitao 845 28 Start Unknown
    • 918 Coordinates (mathematics) 38 1 Start Unknown

More entries from Wikipedia:Version 0.7/Popular pages--Coin945 (talk) 22:17, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    • 85 Mariana Trench 145,120 4,837 Start Low
    • 141 M1911 pistol 118,205 3,940 Start Low
    • 241 Faye Dunaway 88,018 2,933 Start Low
    • 242 5.56×45mm NATO 87,765 2,925 Start Low
    • 407 .22 Long Rifle 56,028 1,867 Start Low
    • 414 Prince Edward Island 55,484 1,849 Start Unknown
    • 444 Canola oil 52,225 1,740 Start Unknown
    • 460 Walther PP 50,304 1,676 Start Unknown
      • @Coin945:, noticing an issue with the first two above (and with Bataan Day), in that they have conflicting ratings. Only one rating is "Start", the other tags have higher (and what to me seem more accurate) ratings. I wonder if there can be some sort of check to filter out inconsistencies. CMD (talk) 16:07, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        • I just noticed this too. I made a request that the highest class is the correct one. Sometimes it's updated and increased by one but not by the others. But rarely is it decreased.--Coin945 (talk) 16:10, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
            • Thanks very much for this! The ratings system is terrible - most people who give ratings do so in huge runs, basing it almost entirely on length. Then, whatever happens to the article, nothing is changed for years. Too many people are reluctant to self-assess, or change ratings for projects they aren't part of. Johnbod (talk) 16:46, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Query on time frames

[edit]

Hello! I might be interested. Over the past couple of months, I've been improving Mario, a level 4 vital article. Looking in the history, my first edit was March 25, and it currently stands as this (immensely rewrote and expanded most of the Appearances section with the bottom half soon to be finished, and wrote the voice acting portion). Would these prior edits count, or does it only start mattering what I do after June 1? Panini!🥪 13:52, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Great you've been improving Mario! Unfortunately, I don't think it would be fair if you got a head-start compared to the others with improving an article, so only edits after June 1 count. Maybe you're aware of a similar article that is in a worse shape? FemkeMilene (talk) 16:19, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Luigi CMD (talk) 17:06, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Femkemilene, Ahhhh, that makes sense. I bet I can find some other level fives out there. Panini!🥪 11:36, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Well, there's still a lot more I need to do with the article, would it still work? Panini!🥪 11:42, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It has over 200 refs already, so dramatic improvements may be harder to find - a somewhat similar situation to here. By all means have a go, but an article in a worse state now might be a better choice. Johnbod (talk) 14:19, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Table of entries + initial stats

[edit]

I'm getting excited seeing that we've got fifteen entries (so far). Possibilities to improve them abound, with some articles being very short, supported by outdated sources, in the mids of a copyright investigation or simply disorganized. I wish all of the competitors the best of luck and fun!

Article VIT # Citations old # Citations new Growth % Words old Words new Growth % Median age sourcing old[1] Median age sourcing new Change age
British West Indies 9 9 0 1,321 1,388 67 2007 1998 -9
Zoology 3 21 45 24 1,439 2,861 1,422 1999 2004 +5
Prehistoric religion 4 7 224 217 870 11,424 10,554 2002 2011 +9
Duck 4 21 49 28 1,789 2,456 667 2006 2003 -3
The arts 1 33 33 0 3,356 3,355 -1 2014 2014 0
Lusaka 4 32 128 96 1,555 5,620 4,065 2014 2016 +2
History of music 3 35 143 108 4,568 5,875 1,307 2009 2003 -6
Black Mirror 5 146 249 103 5,623 7,414 1,791 2017 2018 +1
William Lyon Mackenzie 5 275 275 0 7,791 7,797 6 1980 1980 0
George Brown (Canadian politician) 5 30 23 -7 1,862 2,695 833 2012 2013 1
Flower 3 52 119 67 5,429 7,110 1,681 2010 2009 -1
St. Patrick's Cathedral (Manhattan) 5 42 331 289 3,098 9,232 6,134 2015 1942 -73
Manufacturing 2 11 52 41 972 2,387 1,415 2018 2002 -16
Dracula 4 70[2] 141 71 2,946 5,131 2,185 2013[3] 1996 -17
Nut (fruit) 4 3 17 14 355 970[4] 625[4] 2008 2014 6
Dili 5 18 217 199 1,052 6,824 5,772 2015 2015 0

FemkeMilene (talk) 19:34, 31 May 2021 (UTC), updated 16:06, 1 June 2021 (UTC) and 19:32, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks - will be very useful. Johnbod (talk) 21:41, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Femkemilene, pretty cool stats. How are you calculating the word count? Prosesize gives me 722 words for the currently-in-mainspace/pre-improvement revision of Prehistoric religion. Vaticidalprophet 15:59, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I used xtools for that and citations (using unique references): https://xtools.wmflabs.org/articleinfo/en.wikipedia.org/Prehistoric%20religion. FemkeMilene (talk) 16:01, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Femkemilene: Hi, Femke! The table says my sandbox had 77 references on June 1, but I think it had 70 (May 24 vs the next edit on June 9). Is the bot accidentally including the Notes? :) — ImaginesTigers (talk∙contribs) 22:51, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, xtools seems to include the notes.. Annoying. Thanks for noting. FemkeMilene (talk) 06:33, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(belatedly) very very happy to see something like this here :) Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:44, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Now the next question is about wiki-etiquette....do we add in the updates (which alternated between me and contestants haphazardly IIRC in years past) or let the contestants do it....Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:34, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Let the contestants do it, and we check? Sometimes comments about intervening edits by others are needed. Johnbod (talk) 14:24, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Have not tested my script exhaustively, may contain errors.
  2. ^ June 1 sandbox version
  3. ^ Article space, not sandbox.
  4. ^ a b Misleading figures because much of the expansion is in the form of a table.

Announcement

[edit]

See WP:The Core Contest/Winners. I think it was a fantastic year, and the five winners reflect how difficult it was for the judges to weight coreness, improvements, and pre-contest lack of quality. We would like to horourably mention two further nominations of highly core articles: Flower by Dracophyllum (talk · contribs) and Manufacturing by DanCherek (talk · contribs). While the improvements were more modest than the winners, they have greatly increased the usefulness of these articles. A further mention goes to Vami_IV (talk · contribs) who continued making impressive improvements to Palace of Versailles even after withdrawing.

The next contest will take place either November/December or early next year. FemkeMilene (talk) 11:12, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate the mention. To a better next year. –♠Vami_IV†♠ 11:16, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It's difficult to format in words my thankfulness for this opportunity, but it is immense. I loved having this opportunity, and I've the utmost respect and gratitude to the three of you for hosting it. Seeing the improvements to these articles -- and the huge increase in reader value that translates to -- was a genuinely touching experience. I hope to see you all again in a few months. Vaticidalprophet 11:26, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
What Vaticidalprophet said is true for me, too. Thank you so much to all of the coordinators for running this, and congratulations to all participants. Meaningful improvement has been made here, beyond just the winners, to so many articles, and it’s amazing to see it. Thanks once again! I hope all of you learned loads of new stuff while working on your projects. — ImaginesTigers (talk∙contribs) 18:16, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I was thinking our spot in the Signpost is better reserved for just before the next competition, in the hope to attract an even wider field of nominations. FemkeMilene (talk) 13:38, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think they ration "spots" - a short item with a link would be good now. Johnbod (talk) 13:48, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Congratulations to the winners and many thanks to the judges! DanCherek (talk) 14:01, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough. John, would you have time to do that? FemkeMilene (talk) 14:06, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Done that here Johnbod (talk) 15:23, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the mention! Dracophyllum 19:36, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you to the organisers and WMUK. I hope the results are encouraging enough that this could be repeated with greater participation in the future. CMD (talk) 03:16, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Congratulations, everyone! — Bilorv (talk) 14:27, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Apologies for the extremely late comment, but just to add a thanks from me to the organisers for putting on a fantastic Core Contest for us last year, and I'm very honoured to have achieved joint second place in the contest. Congrats to all the entrants, especially those in the top five, and most especially to Vaticidalprophet for winning the contest. Writing a lengthy GA almost from scratch, on a hugely encyclopedic topic, is highly impressive. On another note, does anyone know if there's likely to be a contest this year? Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 10:04, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @Amakuru: Fortuitous timing! Femke and Casliber started brainstorming for the next contest just yesterday at User talk:Casliber#The core contest. DanCherek (talk) 10:08, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @DanCherek: ha, that's funny! Great that it seems the ball is rolling again... I'll have to start giving some thought as to what I might cover this time around...  — Amakuru (talk) 10:23, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong date?

[edit]

The top of the page currently says, "The next (tenth) contest will take place from 00:01 UTC April 15 to 23:59 UTC May 31 2021". Is this supposed to be 2022? I don't want to WP:BEBOLD and change it myself because I'm not running this contest. Pinging @Femkemilene: Z1720 (talk) 18:24, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Changed - if not, those of us on the entries page are wasting our time! Johnbod (talk) 18:29, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks :). Femke (talk) 18:44, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Help me decide...

[edit]

Since the contest is meant to be a friendly competition, I thought I'd bring my delimna to you guys. I'm leaning towards one of the following:

  • Human history: Vital level 1. On 91 wikis. Gets around 51K views a month, 622K a year. Right now, rated B-class. 10,800 words, with 183 footnotes, so about 59 words per footnote. About 4900 words unreferenced (not counting lead) - so about 45% unreferenced. The article is seriously unbalanced - a third of the article is 1500AD to present. It's got some wildly strange sources, but in a previous core contest I did at least get some of the worst weeded out so it isn't as badly sourced as it once was.
  • Ancient history: Vital level 2. 111 wikis. Gets around 49K views a month, 590K a year. Right now, rated C-class. 13,200 words, with 142 footnotes, so about 92 words per footnote. About 8000 words unreferenced, so about 61% unreferenced. Has five big section cleanup banners. The sources... oh, the sources. (and the icky timelines that are useless). A pile of very very old sources. Some popular "histories" (Time Almanac anyone?), personal websites, answers.com, mailing lists, ancient sources, BBC, newspapers, etc. I haven't even looked to see if it's at all balanced in coverage (I suspect it's heavy on European history)
  • Ancient Rome: Vital level 3. 131 wikis. Gets around 80K views a month, 970K a year. Right now, rated C-class. 20,400 words (YIKES!) with 294 footnotes (which isn't really saying much given the quality of the footnotes), so about 69 words per footnote. About 5200 words unreferenced. This thing is at least 5K words over what it should be (probably more), and it's got some serious referencing issues. A LOT of ancient sources, along with a pile of outdated sources (Gibbon! Durant! Bury!) and a pile of just plain bad sources - course websites, BBC, bible encyclopedias from 1915, Herzog's Encylopedia from 1858, a bunch of self-published things (BiblioBazaar!), and some sources that I just can't fine ("Good Apple 1991"???)

All three need work. All three have equal chances of breaking my will in the process. I'm slightly leaning Human history, but am willing to be swayed to either of the other two... all I can say is thank goodness for the WikiLibrary Card... wheew!

I also briefly considered Reformation (Vital Level 3, 56K monthly/670K yearly views, about 55% unreferenced) and Classical antiquity (Vital level 4, 36K monthly/445K yearly views, about 73% unreferenced), but really think the above three are the better choices. Ealdgyth (talk) 20:30, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I don't find it unreasonable that an English-language encyclopedia would have more developed content about the parts of the world with ancient documents and modern publishers on those subjects. Your complaints seem to hinge on the damage editors lacking historical education have made. To that end, only Ancient Rome has a historiography section where you could explicate the bad sources and biased narratives regarding the subject. You would be starting from scratch if you chose one of the other articles. Chris Troutman (talk) 20:50, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, sorry. When I say "sources" I mean the sources used in the footnotes/references. So in Ancient Rome, footnote 222 is to Gibbon, and footnote 223 is to "The Encyclopedia Americana: A Library of Universal Knowledge. Encyclopedia Americana Corporation. 1919. p. 644."... So while the articles may have a lot of footnotes, a lot of them are to old or unreliable sources that would need replacing. Like footnote 68 in Ancient history is to "Time Almanac, p. 724 by editors of Time magazine" or footnote 56 is to a page on Answers.com. Ealdgyth (talk) 21:01, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I only have a BA on History, but while your complaint with answers.com is addressed by WP:RS your apparent dislike of Edward Gibbon's work is a matter of historiography. The Recent Changes Patrol ought to chase off editors causing the former. You'll need to explicate to address the latter. Chris Troutman (talk) 00:35, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Edward Gibbon died 200 years. Ancient Rome is among the most written about topics and there is almost never a reason to choose a 200 year old source over sources of the last 20-50 years Aza24 (talk) 02:21, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Also, there's a whole section in WP:RS devoted to aged sources... Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 03:16, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I briefly considered ancient history (and classical antiquity) myself, but then I decided that I didn't hate myself that much quite yet. All of them are important topics; all of them have plenty of scope for improvement. Classical antiquity is probably the most obviously deficient, but also possibly the least core, and gets the fewest views.
If you do go for human history, balancing is going to be your biggest concern, I think – there's currently as many words on the past 20 years as there are on the Americas before Columbus. Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 21:17, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Given the circumstances, I would personally recommend ancient history. Human history is in at least readable shape, and has some pretty decent sections thanks to your own work. Though Ancient Rome is pretty awful, I feel like it is a popular enough topic that it has a reasonable chance of improving in the near feature. But a topic like Ancient history might be too intimidating for it to get better anytime soon, and the TCC seems designed for articles like that. This being said, given each topic's immensity, if you find yourself more motivated for one over the other (it seems like you might be preferring human history), just riding that motivation as far as you can might be your best bet. Aza24 (talk) 22:39, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • A firm recommendation for Ancient Rome! The line and a bit given to Roman literature decided me, & it gets the most views. The referencing in Human history may be fairly dire, but is the text actually wrong? Take "Since at least the 4th century, Christianity, primarily the Roman Catholic Church,[113][114][115][116] and later Protestantism,[117][118] has played a prominent role in the shaping of Western civilization.[119][120][121][122]" - well you can't argue with that, even if the 10 refs are pretty dodgy. Mostly the article seems so tour d'horizon it will do for homework (no doubt there are some great bloopers I missed). Ancient history is really terrible, but I'm afraid you will go mad working on it. I'm sure this has the highest level of downright inaccuracy. No link to Minoan Civilization. I was struck by: "The preceding Iron Age is often thought to have ended in the Middle East around 550 BC due to the rise of historiography (the historical record)." and "Separate Greek kingdoms Egypt and Asia encouraged trade and communication like earlier Persian administrations" as the start of the "Formation of empires and fragmentation" section. Johnbod (talk) 03:37, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Winners announced

[edit]

Right folks, sorry about the delay...announced here cheers, Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 02:35, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Great - thanks to the judges, and well done everyone! Johnbod (talk) 04:10, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks to the organisers and judges. It was nice to see the broad range of articles improved through this process. CMD (talk) 08:31, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Congrats to all! DanCherek (talk) 20:06, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Well done to all—fantastic content work! — Bilorv (talk) 14:52, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks to everyone involved, and thanks to the judges! Was off for some time, and the results were a surprise for me :) Artem.G (talk) 15:37, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

2023 edition: what month?

[edit]

I was thinking starting around April, maybe the same timeframe as last year (mid-April-end June). Or do people want it earlier or later in the year? —Femke 🐦 (talk) 19:04, 29 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds fine to me. Johnbod (talk) 19:09, 29 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Before I put in a request at WMUK for another year's of price money, I'd like to know if we can find judges for that time period. @Casliber, Buidhe, and Johnbod: would you be up for another year of judging? Other volunteers of course also welcome :). —Femke 🐦 (talk) 09:12, 31 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I do not have enough time. (t · c) buidhe 09:13, 31 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm happy to judge then. Timeframe is fine. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 23:43, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'd be happy to help judge – Aza24 (talk) 00:07, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think I ight compete this time - why not ask at WP:FAC? Johnbod (talk) 02:03, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Brilliant. It seems our team of judges is complete! I've asked for the grant from WMUK.

Promotion

[edit]

I'd like to do a bit more promotion this time around. The competition produces such amazing content, so I hope we can make it slightly bigger :). In addition to notifying the usual spaces (big wikiprojects, and places like the wikicup), I'd like to include previous participants (of last 3 editions) using a mass message delivery list. Furthermore, I hope we can try to get into the March Signpost. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 18:21, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Femke hard, hard agree :) We certainly need more public interest for improving broad-topic articles. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 13:54, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It would be a good idea to get a watchlist notice too, at least for part of the nomination period. This was done for the Vital Articles/30 kB drive and was largely successful in attracting attention. Aza24 (talk) 18:05, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That's an excellent idea. I didn't manage to find the time last year. Do you have time for the watchlist notice / maybe even the Signpost article, Aza? For the Signpost article, Cas suggested a rerun of Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2015-03-11/Op-ed two years ago. I believe we didn't do this as that Signpost was cancelled. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 17:42, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Would be happy to do both, though not sure how the Signpost's schedule works. – Aza24 (talk) 03:37, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If you submit a draft early March, that should be plenty of time for the end-of-March edition. Last-minute submissions seem to be accepted up to a couple days before the publication deadline. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 09:13, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I've got a massmessage prepared to be delivered to Wikipedia:The Core Contest/delivery list and have listed everybody who competed in the last three events (can make it 4 as well?). Kept the tone light, as this contest should be fun :). Could somebody go over the message with a copy-edit / tell me if I'm about to do something wrong with MMS? My first time using MMS. When shall I send it out? @Aza24: are you still going for the end-of-March Signpost? If so, I'll send it out over the weekend to ensure some spread of info. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 19:29, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Should also ping @Casliber, as I'm signing from all three judges. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 19:34, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Aaaand it's a yes from me Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 01:25, 11 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good. We could include (${{To USD|300|GBR}})—$410.96—to give the US equilvilant amount, but this might be unnecessary. I'll try to get a draft going in the next few days and report back. Aza24 (talk) 01:28, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm.. I dislike stressing the money, and dislike including dollars, but not euros.
Thanks about the draft :). —Femke 🐦 (talk) 17:36, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ideas on how to stimulate GA noms?

[edit]
The number of VIT3 GAs has stabilised, while the number of FAs is declining.
Overall numbers of FAs and GAs are still rising.

I just did a tiny bit of number crunching on the WP:VIT3 GAs and FAs. It's no surprise that the number of VIT3 FAs has dropped due to the success of WP:URFA/2020 (which manages to overhaul and save probs an impressive 1/3 of unmaintained vital articles). With the WP:GAR process very quiet, the lack of growth in GAs is a bit more worrying.

What can we do to stimulate more of a pipeline from TCC articles to GAN? One of my ideas is to include a column in the article table we sometimes make of GAN/FAC. Only the act of 'measuring' may stimulate people to do the last 10% of what is needed for a GA nom.

What other things can we do? Maybe more explicitly stimulate teamwork? —Femke 🐦 (talk) 18:00, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It's not clear to me that the number of vital GAs is a problem at all actually. Judging by your graphs, it looks like there are ~120 vital GAs, which is 12% of all vital articles. By comparison, less than 0.6% of all articles are GAs. Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 19:44, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
As for what could TCC do to stimulate GA noms: it's not my impression currently that this is a goal of TCC at all. The rules say: priority is to improve those core articles in the worst state of disrepair, in cases of similar levels of improvement, articles in a worse state to begin with will be deemed more valuable, and the good- and featured-article process are not considered part of the Core Contest. If you are working on an article for the core contest, it makes the most sense (both from a "spirit of the competition" perspective and a purely strategic perspective) to try to choose an article as far from being GA quality as reasonably possible, so even major improvements may not bring it close enough to GA to make nominating worthwhile. If stimulating GA nominations is a goal of the contest, it would make sense to say so on the main page.
On the topic of why core articles aren't brought to GA more broadly, my experience in getting articles to GA as both nominator and reviewer suggests that there are basically three common obstacles: (1) sources don't exist or are difficult to get hold of; (2) writing up the article is difficult for some reason; (3) editors aren't interested in putting in the effort, or don't want to go through the GA process. Issue 1 should not be a problem for the majority of vital articles. Issue 2 is more of a problem: while the structure of a biography, for instance, is pretty well established, structuring and balancing a more general article like furniture, emotion, or tool is not so straightforward. Solving point 3 probably requires work at WT:GAN. Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 09:31, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Improving the worst articles and stimulating as much GA as possible need not be mutually exclusive. As the WP:30 kB drive has shown, as long as the topic is not too abstract/technical and there's enough interest, many articles can be improved drastically in a short time. I think that the number of editors is a limiting factor – had the drive had more people and a narrower focus perhaps a few articles might be improved enough to pass GAN. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 12:37, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I do think that having only 20% of VIT3 articles as GA or FA is an opportunity for improvement / a problem. Some of these articles, like furniture or tool, are not that important and I think should not be in that list. But for a large portion of these articles, there is a clear societal need to have high-quality content. Some for educational reasons (conic section, Epistemology), some for health information (mental disorder, addiction), and some for reasons of citizenship (colonialism/renewable energy). We've have not had any type of WP:GA sweeps since 2010, so I wouldn't be surprised if some of the current VIT3 GAs needs delisting. In that way, the situation may be worsening.
You're absolutely right that the GA process is separate from this contest. Yet, I do see it as a good opportunity to stimulate more GA nominations of vital articles. I can't find the diff, but historically it has also been seen as a way to get more FACs, even though that is further away from the spirit of the competition, given you it's infeasible to do this within the six weeks if you choose an appropriately horrible article to start with.
The link between the GA and FA process now solely in giving feedback at the end of the competition. From the rules, As judges review entries, they will post feedback on the improvements and areas still to improve before future good article nomination or featured article candidacy. Last year, we didn't give article specific feedback at the end of the competition due to time constraints. It would be good to do this again as a nudge for people to continue working on the article after the competition ends. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 09:03, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The hit rate is pretty good. East Timor (April/May 2022) is currently undergoing GAN. In June/July 2021 Prehistoric religion and Dracula both went through GAN during the contest period, which is a rapid time to even have your GAN picked up. Aztecs from May/June 2017 went to GAN in January 2018, and passed a couple of months later, while Anthozoa went to GAN immediately after the contest and also passed a couple of months later. These also assume editors want to nominate articles for GAN, which not everyone does. CMD (talk) 10:42, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I hadn't seen the East Timor GAN. That's exciting :). This post was prompted by my noticing none of last year's entries had made it to GA, happy to see that'll change soon. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 15:21, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I could probably get Lusaka to GA at some point (that was my 2021 entry, which did quite nicely), a lot of it's in good nick, but there are a few sections near the bottom that I never got around to. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 15:25, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Noting here that I have finally brought Simón Bolívar to GAN. –♠Vamí_IV†♠ 21:07, 11 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Prizes and Paypal

[edit]

WMUK has agreed to the grant again (yay!). They indicated that they prefer a method of payment that doesn't cost a lot of money/time with international payments. They suggested we ask people make a Paypal account to get around this. I don't know how easy this is internationally, so wanted to ask if there are any objections to this? —Femke 🐦 (talk) 09:43, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Paypal has some fees relating to international transfers, even if it is same currency. This is affected by the type of paypal account and a few other factors, so WMUK would need to look into it. There are some cheaper fintech options, in the end they mostly have similar restrictions to Paypal. I am not sure what other methods WMUK has looked at. CMD (talk) 09:53, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I believe the administrative burden is as important as the fees here. The fee for sending money via Paypal seems to be 5%; I've seen worse with normal transfers. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 15:41, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I am not convinced the administrative burden of paypal is less than other methods, anecdotally it has given me more trouble. It may vary country by country, I am not sure what cases WMUK is looking at. CMD (talk) 09:11, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think what's important is the administrative burden specific on WMUK. If they're used to Paypal (which seems to be the case), that will make it easier for them to get the money to winners. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 17:49, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
My statement related to the administrative burden specific on WMUK. CMD (talk) 00:30, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Is this a new development? When I got third place in the past I was asked by the WMUK to receive the money via PayPal. Aza24 (talk) 23:51, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe they just want to formalise the situtation.. I'm not sure —Femke 🐦 (talk) 08:27, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Anyone entering the Core Contest might also be interested in this £100 reward offered for taking any level 2 vital article to Good Article status, or this $1000 reward for a level 1 vital article (although the latter expires on 31 May, so considering the time needed for a GA nomination, the timing might be a bit tight for a Core Contest entry). the wub "?!" 15:45, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Script to produce table of entries + stats

[edit]

I got the first bit of the code finished to automatically produce a list of stats for entrants. Only have to write the bit still where I make a comparison between two states of the article at the end of the competition. Compared to last year, I've also added pageviews, as a second way to show an article is super core beside its vital level.

https://hub.paws.wmcloud.org/user/Femke/lab/tree/Core_contest_table.ipynb.

Example statistics
Article VIT Views Words References Median Age
Asteroid 3 HM 9496 233 2011
Ancient history 2 HM 7494 228 2000
East Timor 4 M 7398 492 2014
Italian Renaissance sculpture L 10434 200
Simón Bolívar 3 TQM 8387 451 2011

Probs won't have much time to code more, but will entertain simple requests for stats to add or remove (maybe for next year). —Femke 🐦 (talk) 19:34, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Need help deciding

[edit]

Taking inspiration from Ealdgyth above. This'll be my first year participating, so I might as well ask for the opinions of respected elders, so to speak. One thing first: my long-term goal is getting Genghis Khan to GAN and then FAC. As around a third has been done, and substantially more planned out, of course I can't work on it as part of this. So I've got four articles to choose from: three level-3 Vitals (Mongol Empire, Silk Road and History of the Middle East), and one level-4 (Mongol invasions and conquests). Quick summaries:

  • Mongol Empire: 10587 words with 143 inline refs (74 words/ref), 1.5 million views/year, currently B-class but in reality approaching C. Odd organisation, huge emphasis placed on a purely historical timeline, absence of any high-level recent scholarship. Very comfortable with the subject.
  • Silk Road: 9272 words with 179 inline refs (51 words/ref), 0.9 million views/year, C-class. Some historical sections incomplete or abandoned, while great emphasis is placed on the Belt and Road Initiative and WP:CRYSTALBALL determinations of what Chinese investment will bring. Quite comfortable with the subject.
  • History of the Middle East: 8168 words with 54 inline refs (151 words/ref), 125k views/year, C-class. Huge amounts of unsourced content. Somewhat unfamiliar with the topic as a whole, but don't foresee any great difficulties.
  • Mongol invasions and conquests: 1493 words with 45 inline refs (33 words/ref), 210k views/year, Start/C-class. Very short, organised geographically rather than chronologically, which would seem to work better, and with an abundance of trivia dropped in at random points. Very comfortable with the subject.

At the moment, I'm leaning towards either Silk Road or Mongol invasions and conquests, but would like the opinions of others. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 00:02, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker) My memory of learning about the Mongol Empire back in university is that older historical scholarship suffered from focusing on Genghis Khan to the detriment of the Empire's wider history. Assuming that's true (you'd know that better than me), with recent scholarship missing from the article, that might be where you could make the largest impact both in terms of fixing Wikipedia's content + reaching the most readers. Any research for that article would also contribute towards your long-time goal. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 00:19, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

How to participate?

[edit]

What exactly do I have to do to participate? Do I put a ✓ in front of an name in Wikipedia:The Core Contest/Articles, or do I add an entry to Wikipedia:The Core Contest/Entries? 〜 Festucalex • talk 20:04, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Pick an article from WP:VITAL, or an article you can convincingly argue as being a vital article if it's not listed at VITAL, and add an entry for it at Wikipedia:The Core Contest/Entries. Comments about the state of the article and your plans would be helpful. –♠Vamí_IV†♠ 20:30, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. Done. 〜 Festucalex • talk 08:44, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Market is a dab page

[edit]

Initial stats and good luck

[edit]

I'm very excited to see another year's worth of core articles. With 17 articles, we've got a good turnout, and this may grow further as late entries are always allowed. I wish all participants the best of luck!

Code for the table can be found: https://hub-paws.wmcloud.org/user/Femke/lab/tree/Core_contest_table.ipynb. Word count and references are from xtools, pageviews from PageViews, and the median age from a unsophisticated reading of the existing source templates in an article (so it excludes sources that aren't templated).

Article VIT Views Words References Median Age
Silk Road 3 M 9793 220 2009
Georgetown, Guyana 5 200k 2200 22 2019
Reformation 3 3/4M 10753 166 2007
Parkinson's disease 4 M 9356 469 2014
Crime 3 3/4M 4050 62 2002
Election 4 1/4M 3483 61 2014
Roald Amundsen 3 1/2M 3124 74 1996
Journey to the West 4 1/2M 4159 31 2008
Jurisprudence 4 1/4M 5004 70 2006
Tenants union <100k 191 4 2022
International law 4 1/4M 6957 61 2011
Prehistory 2 1/4M 2881 68 2009
Klaipėda 5 150k 6992 209 2021
History of geography 4 <100k 7369 77 1999
Ellesmere Island 4 150k 1906 57 2006
Donatello 4 1/4M 1781 23 2016
Ferrari 5 M 4559 218 2018
Spirit (rover) 5 100k 8047[a] 102[a]
Mars Exploration Rover <100k 6217 97 2009
Opportunity (rover) 5 200k 3797[a] 75[a] 2018
Declarative knowledge <100k[b] 205[a] 8[a]
Ubangi River 4 <100k 398 15 2018
The Communist Manifesto 4 1/2M 3651 39 2007

Notes:

  1. ^ a b c d e f manually checked, as code ran after improvements
  2. ^ this is last years view, views have increased a lot since Jan

—Femke 🐦 (talk) 08:44, 15 April 2023 (UTC) Updated —Femke 🐦 (talk) 20:02, 19 April 2023 (UTC) Updated 2 —Femke 🐦 (talk) 16:39, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Multiple entries and a note on scoring

[edit]
Femke, out of curiosity, how will the judges consider Artem.G's three-in-one entry? Will they be scored cumulatively? Are they all considered separate entries? Cumulative scoring would provide far more opportunity to win for anyone with that sort of perseverance, but I could see either as being within the spirit of the competition. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 00:58, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Though I've not spoke to Femke about this privately, I doubt that cumulative scoring provides a significant advantage for three articles with somewhat borderline coreness. Even if all three are improved to GA status, a major improvement to an article like Human history would still be more significant. Aza24 (talk) 02:19, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I doubt I'll have enough time to do all three, the idea was that twin rovers have twin articles, with some sections being identical for both. And yes, as mentioned before, the articles are not that core :) Artem.G (talk) 06:54, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Very good question, don't have a final answer yet. We've seen multiple entries before iirc, but not since I've joined the team of judges. The way I normally judge is first giving scores for a 5 categories of key improvements (readability/accessibility, prose, sourcing, lead quality, images), and then multiply this by a coreness factor. Last year, the difference between VIT1/2 to VIT5 was a factor of three I think. This year, I may make that range larger, to account for the differences in VIT5 coreness, differences in readership and the entries of more borderline core articles. This is the key reason I've put readership in the big table now, to have a good justification in differentiating between article that have a low coreness, and a borderline coreness. I'm maybe thinking a factor of 5 between the very borderlines (tenants union/Mars exploration Rover) and the supercores (Silk Road / Prehistory).
As you say, a cumulative scoring could become unfair if done improperly. On the other hand, improving two VIT5 articles has a larger "added encyclopedic value" than improving one VIT5 article. We have two low core articles, one borderline core article, so I'll almost consider this a 2-article entry. I could score the total improvements (sort of cumulative), and then multiply by average coreness? Femke (alt) (talk) 07:06, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I must say I don't think much of official "coreness" - these lists, especially at the higher levels, have hardly changed for getting on for 20 years, and have many flaws. I think views, plus an instinctive take on the degree to which the subjects are serious and encyclopaedic, are a better guide. Johnbod (talk) 14:26, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Final stats and when to expect results

[edit]
A lot of article improvements to celebrate

Thanks everybody!! I think this year has had some fantastic improvements to really core articles. Loads of trivia gone and replaced with useful information. One GA already and two more noms (if I've not overlooked any). Will very much enjoy reading all of the diffs. I'm travelling next week, and I may be too tired afterwards to meet the two week "deadline" we set, but won't be much later (Aza and Cas have not indicated delays).

The table of key statistics is below. The median age doesn't seem to be that insightful, and will add authorship next year if I've got some time to code that up. It's funny to see that major improvements now often come with a negative numbers of words added, even if citations are more likely to go up still.

Article VIT Views Words Words added References Refs added Median Age Change year
Parkinson's disease 4 M 9266 -90 470 1 2014 -
Crime 3 3/4M 3597 -453 129 67 2003 1
Election 4 1/4M 3449 -34 61 0 2014 -
Jurisprudence 4 1/4M 4842 -162 69 -1 2006 -
International law 4 1/4M 9265 2308 268 207 2011 -
Prehistory 2 1/4M 2881 0 68 0 2009 -
Ellesmere Island 4 150k 4373 2467 132 75 2006 -
Donatello 4 1/4M 8337 6556 171 148 2019 3
Ferrari 5 M 4764 205 241 23 2018 -
Spirit (rover) 5 100k 2910 -5137 80 -22 2011
Mars Exploration Rover <100k 6235 18 112 15 2010 1
Opportunity (rover) 5 200k 2474 -1323 82 7 2018 -
Declarative knowledge <100k 5808 5603 159 151 2013
Ubangi River 4 <100k 382 0 15 0 2018
Antonio del Pollaiuolo <100k 2963 ? 73 68 2019
The Holocaust 4 3M 7533 -4655 532 -63 2019
Education 2 2M 8719 -1295 322 -5 2014

—Femke 🐦 (talk) 16:59, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Winners announced

[edit]

A fantastic competition this year, with winners announced. So many amazing entries that we got five winners this year. With this many entries, it took us a bit longer than hoped to read through all of them (and read through their related rabbit holes), to figure out which article may be even better than the next.

Thanks for the enormous work done and the dedication to sourcing and structure that all of you showed. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 19:48, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a lot to the judges Femke, Aza24, and Casliber for making this possible! Phlsph7 (talk) 07:02, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Well done to all involved, some very core articles! CMD (talk) 08:57, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Congratulations to all! Some very important articles improved Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 09:47, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, many thanks to the judges! Another good crop I think, showing the value of this contest. Johnbod (talk) 13:25, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
So awesome. Well done, all. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 17:49, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:The_Core_Contest/2021_archive&oldid=1215264998"