Wikipedia:The Core Contest/Entries

The contest has generally been run over four weeks. Generally editors nominate the articles they intend working on beforehand as it might help folks to reserve an article so they can prepare by gathering some book/paper sources, however nominating material after this period ends is okay too—editors can still submit material they improved during the period. When the four-week editing period ends, the judges will review the submissions and announce the winners within two weeks. Other editors are welcome to comment on the entries.

The potential article pool includes vital and core articles. Editors are also welcome to improve and nominate an improvement to a broad or important article not on the two lists if they explain why their article should be considered.

When you submit an article you improved for the contest, please list a specific revision that you're happy with, as well as a link to the revision on which you built your improvements. For example, this would show improvements made to the article Lebensraum. Only edits made during the contest period may be included in the diff link.

List of contest entriesEdit

List here articles submitted, and the diffs showing the improvement. Multiple segments are allowed to clarify the diffs submitted by a particular editor in a busy article. Co-submissions are allowed. Judges will comment on entries immediately below them, clarify benefits gained and offer feedback on what else needs to be done. Within two weeks of the conclusion, prizewinners will be announced. An example of how to lay out a sample entry as follows.

Sandro BotticelliEdit

Note: Also thinking about Renaissance art, though that's more like 850 views pd. Johnbod (talk) 16:06, 29 April 2017 (UTC)
no, scrub that, but I'm finding the articles on the major paintings need urgent work also:

Comments by judgesEdit

  • Wow, few (20) references only. Unsourced sections. Lots of material can go in. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 05:50, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
oh start digging and....Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 21:51, 25 June 2017 (UTC)
NIce work @Johnbod:, I hope you are thinking of the GA/FA route at some point! Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:15, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

Comments by othersEdit

  • Definitely think this one needs work. Of course, Old Master is really really atrocious... Ealdgyth - Talk 16:50, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
  • The work on daughter articles, ie individual paintings, has been first rate, a few have frankly, wained, on my watchlist for years until now...expansion of existing pages doest happen every day. The Old Master pages is a glorified list; it doest even begin to scratch the surface of what the terminology implies; an point in time perception of the broad outline of art history; and thus meaning different things to different people; to most it probably means simply a dusty and obscure segment of the art market. Ceoil (talk) 01:24, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

History of the WorldEdit

  • Nominator - Ealdgyth (talk · contribs)
  • Improvements: Article right before starting work and article at the end of my work
  • Comments: I count 34 outdated sources in the article (not counting other sources that look iffy at best), the ugly timeline in the Ancient history section, lack of pointers to subsidiary articles, large swaths unreferenced, and a see also section that is entirely too large. Also some very polemic "further reading" selections (plus "A Cartoon History of the World"? Really???). It's a Level 1 vital article, and gets about 1600+ views a day.
    • I didn't get as much done on this one as I hoped, but it did get improved a good bit. I'll work on it some more in the next contest. Ealdgyth - Talk 21:20, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

Comments by judgesEdit

  • Great choice as a level 1 vital article. Currently at 56 kb readable prose. Be interested to see how this develops. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 05:54, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
I can't look at the title without thinking of this...more later. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 21:30, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

Comments by othersEdit

  • Gulp! "Europe's Renaissance, beginning in the 14th century,[184] consisted of the rediscovery of the classical world's scientific contributions, and of the economic and social rise of Europe. The Renaissance also engendered a culture of inquisitiveness which ultimately led to Humanism[185] and the Scientific Revolution.[186] Although it saw social and political upheaval and revolutions in many intellectual pursuits, the Renaissance is perhaps known best for its artistic developments and the contributions of such polymaths as Leonardo da Vinci and Michelangelo, who inspired the term "Renaissance man."[187][188]". At this high level, I suspect referencing is probably straightforward (if tedious), but lots of the text needs adjusting of nuance. It's currently a straight one-damm-thing-after-another approach by region, with little globalizing. No nonsense about including Prehistory! Brave choice! Johnbod (talk) 16:28, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Ouch. H. G. Wells cited twice. Claims about the history of China cited to Adam Smith. And then there's this: "Nearly all the agricultural civilizations have been heavily constrained by their environments. Productivity remained low, and climatic changes easily instigated boom-and-bust cycles that brought about civilizations' rise and fall. By about 1500, however, there was a qualitative change in world history. Technological advance and the wealth generated by trade gradually brought about a widening of possibilities.[194][195][196][197][198][199][200][201][202][203][204]": eleven citations, but ten date to before 1930. Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 16:44, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Amazing! Looking forward to see what you do with it. Are you thinking of making any changes to organization/periodization? groupuscule (talk) 22:52, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
    • I'm still trying to get a hold of as many of the already cited works. Many of them lack page numbers on the citations... so it's going to be... interesting. First step is to check all the information that's already cited against the sources... Ealdgyth - Talk 22:57, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
      • I got brave and removed the ugly timeline thingie from the article. Let's see how long it stays out... Ealdgyth - Talk 00:26, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
        • I know how infuriatingly difficult it can be to find from scatch a reference to even the most seemingly banal and basic point that someone else has added and you know to be correct(ish), so if you are short on any specific points, let me know. Johnbod (talk) 02:41, 16 May 2017 (UTC)


Comments by judgesEdit

  • It's "core" enough for me - a big class of ecologically important critters....and it's in an awful state. The lead doesn't actually succinctly say what they are. If you will enjoy doing this a lot more than the other one, then it might be easier to really get stuck into it. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 11:28, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
Right, so went from 564 words and 11 inline refs and looking choppy and incomplete to 2827 words and 37 refs and looking much more polished. Nice. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:11, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

Comments by othersEdit

  • Hmmm! My feeling is that Animal husbandry below is just so much wider a gap. I agree it's very short & skimpy. Avge 242 views pd last 90 days. Johnbod (talk) 15:55, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

Animal husbandryEdit

  • Nominator - Cwmhiraeth (talk · contribs) and Chiswick Chap (talk · contribs)
  • Improvements:
  • Comments: Quite undeveloped and poorly referenced. It has a disproportionally large "Environmental impact" section where POV might be a problem; here is a statement to illustrate this "Livestock operations on land have created more than 500 nitrogen flooded deadzones around the world in our oceans." Cwmhiraeth (talk) 17:50, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Chiswick Chap is joining me to work on this. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 11:02, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

Comments by judgesEdit

  • Yep, speaking anthropogenically yes it is a lot more core than anthozoa and if anything it's in an even worse state. I think this is a vital article to improve....just depends if once you get stuck into it you get more enthusiasm I guess...Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 11:30, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
O-kay, so went from this, with 33 inline references and 880 words, no real lead to speak of, this with 4693 words and 90 inline references and a lead. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:22, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

Comments by othersEdit

  • Oh, good choice. Going to be a tough slog fighting the POV though. Level 3 vital article, with about 1000 page views a day. Ealdgyth - Talk 17:54, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Crikey! It's hardly there at all. Could fairly be called a stub at present. Not even many links to the articles we must have. Johnbod (talk) 15:53, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

Ancient GreeceEdit

  • Nominator: Caeciliusinhorto (talk · contribs)
  • Improvements:
  • Comments: relatively poorly cited, and with a relatively short lead, considering the length of the article. Article struggles with scope and organisation: it isn't consistent on whether the Greek dark ages, or Roman Greece, are in the article's scope; and it tries to organise the article both chronologically and thematically, ending up repetitive and redundant. 3,500+ views per day, level 3 vital article.

Comments by judgesEdit

  • At first glance looks in better condition than some others...yet it only has 36 references for 42 kb of prose. Prose is choppy in places. Plenty of room for improvement and a cornerstone "classics" article. Good choice. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 11:33, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
O-kay, Start version is here, while end is here with 82 inline references now. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:38, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

Comments by othersEdit

  • Oh. Ouch. Michael Grant and Tom Holland? And The History of White People? On the plus side, at least there doesn't appear to be much use of primary sources. I see it has the lovely timeline thingie too... Ealdgyth - Talk 18:25, 30 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Yes. The whole culture section seems especially scrappy and poor, and the society one needs a summary of our long bit in Women in Greece (a wierd article which jumps from ancient Gr to the War of Independence). Lots more needed too no doubt. Impressive views. Johnbod (talk) 01:33, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
I forgot - Caeciliusinhorto won't need to be told about the need for more on women! Johnbod (talk) 14:09, 2 May 2017 (UTC)


  • Nominator - Cobblet (talk · contribs)
  • Improvements:
  • Comments: Vital article (1500–1800 views/day) with lots of paragraphs lacking inline citations, and nine of the 34 references are to what is presumably one guy's entire publication record. Pitifully short historical summary for one of the world's cradles of civilization. Frankly every section could use some expansion. Cobblet (talk) 03:30, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
Sorry, I've been too busy over the past month to work on this. I'd like to withdraw this nomination. Cobblet (talk) 14:28, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

Comments by judgesEdit

  • 21 kb readable prose, so could be comfortably doubled in size. Some sections meagre - geography, flora and fauna all could be expanded. No mention of protected areas (i.e. National Parks) and controversies surrounding same. Any folklore/mythical significance. Also section on peaks could be expanded and delistified a bit. This just at first glance. good choice of article. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:28, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
@Cobblet: sorry to see this, but Wikipedia don't pay the bills or put food on the table so understand. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 21:50, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

Comments by othersEdit

  • On a very quick look this didn't look too bad to me, though obviously it's a very important subject. The citations go up to almost 50 allowing for multiple uses, and all are recent enough, with most looking the right sort of sources. It's the kind of article that might get GA almost as it stands. But most of the leading editors seem to have last edited it many years ago. But I just skimmed it. Johnbod (talk) 14:07, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
  • At a glance the article doesn't look too bad, but the fact that nine papers by the same author are cited to back up a single claim concerns me somewhat. The fact that all the papers were added in a single edit, more than five years ago, and nobody since has worried about WP:OVERCITE makes me wonder what other flaws the article has that aren't immediately apparent to me. Level 3 vital article. Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 14:29, 2 May 2017 (UTC)


  • Nominator - groupuscule (talk · contribs)
  • Improvements: Reorganized and expanded with sources. The article City is or should be the capstone in an enormous pyramid of articles, with urban planning, urban structure, municipal services, public transport, etc. at the next level, and going down to Sanitation in ancient Rome, Multiple nuclei model, etc. It would be difficult to read all these articles let alone organize them properly, but we can always hope. While engaged with City I was able to work on some related articles including those dealing with real and mythological city origins and history, and also to hew roughly a new template to display City-related articles. Meanwhile, "Representations of cities in culture" could also fork but I haven't dared.
    Sources making general but definite statements were key to expanding the article in an encyclopedic way—but not always easy to find, despite the many trees and screen pixels which have been sacrificed to the cause of academic writing on cities. I don't blame the academics, because cities themselves are diverse and defy generalization. There may be some volume bias towards those aspects of cities which can be described with more uniformity, especially the topic of political affairs in the 21st century. Meanwhile although it was possible to improve the history section, the question of which facts would best illustrate "the history of the city" remains open. I hope that readers of this page (clearly editors of high caliber across the arts and sciences) will feel encouraged to jump in.
    All in all, working on this article proved an educational and humbling challenge, which I thank the contest organizers for encouraging. groupuscule (talk) 02:14, 4 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Comments: This article seems messy at present and would perhaps benefit from some systematic attention. Some sections lack references; others seem out of place. I hope to start with some general reading which will inform a plan for improvement, to be posted at the article talk page. Book suggestions and other advice would be greatly appreciated.

Comments by judgesEdit

  • Great choice of core-type article. Yes, it is all over the place with lots of vague writing. Material such as Distinction between cities and towns should be in some sort of definition section near the top of the article for starters (including adding distinction (or not) from conurbation etc.). Is 27 kb readable prose size so no problems with expansion. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 03:05, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

Comments by othersEdit

  • Hmm! A real rag-bag at the moment. It's hard to know what a reader might be looking for here. The history is much the longest section at present, but seems over-long on ancient cities, and there are only 4 passing mentions of China in the whole article. Probably a section on suburbs and city sprawl needed. Some 2,300 views per day. Johnbod (talk) 19:37, 13 May 2017 (UTC)
  • The section referring to O'Flaherty 2005 is painful to read. Overall the article structure is very weak. I'd like to see more discussion of important cities today. Power~enwiki (talk) 03:10, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

Victorian eraEdit

  • Nominator - MasterOfHisOwnDomain (talk · contribs)
  • Improvements:
  • Comments: Apologies for switching from House (collapsed below; grateful to those who responded (forgive me!)), due to a dearth of available sources; this is not the case for this choice. The article is far from comprehensive, lacking sources, and sometimes very simplistic in covering what is a highly complicated (and vital) area of history.

Comments by judgesEdit

  • Should be easy to find references. A quick glance at the prose suggest it could do with some tightening too. Good choice. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 03:11, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
Right, begins here with 42kb of prose and 90 refs. And ends here with 106 refs. Am looking at prose and structure. Nice job of tightening lead, and introducing terminology section, and framing politics of the time. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:50, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

Comments by othersEdit

  • Ok. Very social history oriented. Really nothing on the economy or foreign/imperial policy. Ireland hardly mentioned. Gets a stonking 3,750 views pd, obviously a homework favourite! Johnbod (talk) 01:21, 23 May 2017 (UTC)


  • Nominator - Maunus (talk · contribs)
  • Improvements: diff
  • Comments: Sorry for the late nomination entry. I had thought I was going to enter, but then forgot about it. The article is rated lvl 3 Vital, it receives 2,700 views per day on average and has only 33 citations, with a very large literature section that is essentially a "further reading section" at this point. The article also is not clear about its topic, shifting between writing about the Aztec Empire (which has its own article) and Aztec culture/civilization.
  • Unfortunately, i didn't get nearly as much work done as I had wanted to, but I did reorganize the article, add a lot of information and references, and cleaned up the bibliography a little.

Coments by judgesEdit

  • Nice job of tidying. Size enlarged from 40 kB (6526 words) to 59 kB (9573 words), and inline refs enlarged from 33 to 72 in number. History tidied and expanded. Art, social structure and legacy sections improved or introduced. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 17:44, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

Comments by othersEdit

  • Go for it! I notice you are the only main contributor to edit in the last 5 years, & most of it seems 10yrs+ old. Probably mostly from before refs were in vogue. I suspect much of it is actually fairly sound. The art section (which apparently has no "main") notably fails to say anything about what art they actually made. Johnbod (talk) 18:51, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
  • It is very nice to see work being done on this article, well done for taking it on. It is certainly high notability, and one of the most prominent Mesoamerican articles. All the best, Simon Burchell (talk) 17:46, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
    There is no rush! The improvements are significant, very impressive and very well done. Stick with with it as you have time. I only watchlisted after your nom here, but have been impressed by the initial work. Expectations, given your previous demonstrated ability, are high. Ceoil (talk) 01:16, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

The HolocaustEdit

  • Nominator - Ealdgyth (talk · contribs)
  • Improvements: at start and at end
  • Comments: Well, I got distracted onto working on this....still working on checking citations, but this article is massively bloated. 22,000 readable words (and wayyy too many quotes that aren't in that count too). This is where it was when I started. Will need a good bit of pruning, but there are also areas needing expanded - there is no mention of Holocaust denial, for example. Suffers from all the usual problems of people stuffing in their own little hobbyhorses without regard for the overall balance of the article (i.e. the huge section on Karski/Vrba, which is way undue weight...) Oh, it's a Level 3 vital article, and gets close to 11,000 views a day.
    • So ... everything is sourced. Managed to condense it down to about 13K words from 22K, while also managing to add in some missing stuff. Still a lot to go, it needs some other sections and the prose is still choppy. Haven't checked the images or similar stuff either, but it's definitely in better shape. Ealdgyth - Talk 21:24, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

Comments by judgesEdit

  • A really good article to be tethered to a future de facto Stable Version as it undoubtedly attracts a lot of edits and erodes over time Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 01:40, 5 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Article trimmed from 136 kB (22017 words) to 82 kB (13273 words). inlines from 459 to 483 in number. Material tightened nicely! Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 17:59, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

Comments by othersEdit

Its a lot to take on, and you will have to deal with massive amounts of trolling/right wing wankery. I'm very interested in where you will take History of the World, given you have proven form in this area. But great choice, could not support this nomination more. Ceoil (talk) 19:13, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
Indeed. Heroic choice. Over 10K views pd. Size currently 299k raw bytes - too big? Johnbod (talk) 18:01, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
Extended content
  • Nominator - MasterOfHisOwnDomain (talk · contribs)
  • Improvements: Beginning state
  • Comments: Level-2 Vital article and (generously, IMO) of C-class quality. It shouldn't be difficult to improve this article, which fails to adequately address almost any aspect of the concept; and whose scant references are either dead or not worth keeping!

Comments by judges

  • Good choice - 18 inline references, lots of lists and one-line paras. Plenty of room for improvement..Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:55, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

Comments by others

  • This has long been User:Eric Corbett's favourite example of an article that should not be vital! Gets around 1,000 views pd, though as Eric says, an unknown proportion may be looking for House (TV series) or trying to buy a home. Very random at the moment - for example there's useful stuff that should go to a proper Corridor (architecture) when written, but seems excessive here. There is really nothing on the pre-modern house, or traditional houses around the world (a contrast to City just above). Lots to do, but I suppose many readers will be pretty young, so the early sections should be kept rather simple. Johnbod (talk) 13:57, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
  • At least one article on the topic is vital, but Housing, Home, and Shelter_(building) are all in even worse shape. Power~enwiki (talk) 18:22, 17 May 2017 (UTC)