Wikipedia

Wikipedia:The Core Contest/Entries/April2013 archive

< Wikipedia:The Core Contest | Entries

The contest was run over four weeks, from 0.00 hrs UTC April 15 to 0.00 hrs May 12 2013. Once this period ended, editors could still submit material they improved during the period. The potential article pool included 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.

The contest now concluded, the judges reviewed the submissions and (after much delay) announced winners at Wikipedia:The Core Contest/Winners in June 2013.

List of contest entries

edit

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.

Nazi Germany

edit

Comments by judges

edit
I don't think I have ever seen so many inline refs...wow! Not used to judging articles that have not been enlarged - enjoyable read! Casliber (talk · contribs) 10:13, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by others

edit

Crusades

edit

Comments by judges

edit

Comments by others

edit

Metamorphoses

edit
Improvements: Currently doubled the amount of text, quadrupled the amount of citations, new sections and overhaul of the structure. MasterOfHisOwnDomain (talk) 15:32, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
End position: Previous revision. Created sections on: Sources and models, Themes, In English Translation and substantially revised Contents, Influence and Manuscript Tradition. However, due to the size of the topic and the poor quality of previous content, the article as it stands is inconsistent in terms of quality—while some sections are good, the article as a whole is not yet ready for GAN. MasterOfHisOwnDomain (talk) 08:11, 12 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by judges

edit

Comments by others

edit

Mesoamerica

edit

* Nominator: Maunus (talk · contribs)

Comments by judges

edit

Comments by others

edit
  • What's wrong with the embedded galleries? I mean they could no doubt be made better but I can't see just removing them as an improvement. It's the other images' layout that needs improving. Johnbod (talk) 10:57, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think this use of galleries is in accordance with the MOS, and usually they would be removed in a review process. They break up the text flow and they dont have explanatory text.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 11:16, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nonsense, almost all art FAs on big topics have had them for years, & they sometimes get added as part of a review process (I added many to both of my prize-winning entries to this competition). Yes, they should have decent caption text. Used at the end of a section they don't break up the text any more than a run of whole-page illustrations in a book, which they are the equivalent of. They are the best way to cover a wide range of art in a short space. Johnbod (talk) 13:01, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Well I disagree, and will definitely work to limit the use of galleries if I edit the page. I find such a use of galleries to be basically disruptive for the coherent presentation of information.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 13:16, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Articles about art typically include one or more galleries. The Sculpture article was worked on at the last Core Contest—it has more than 20 galleries. Just sayin'... Binksternet (talk) 15:07, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Galleries work; they convey information quickly, and economically; I was surprised and slightly appalled by the comments against the use of galleries above. The article will be hurt by the elimination of the galleries...Modernist (talk) 10:50, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This article is not about art, and the galleries are hurting the article because first of all the break up the history section so it doesn't convey the fact that those periods are arbitrary and not marked by any particular distinctions in architecture. Secondly the galleries reduce Mesoamerican history to a succession of pyramids. Seein six pyramids from the classic period followed by six pyramids from the post-classic does not give the reader any useful information about what was going on in Mesoamerica in those periods. I will probably move the galleries to the article on Mesoamerican architecture. I will think about whether it is appropriate to have galleries in some of the sections. Perhaps in the section on Mesoamerican art and architecture.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 11:21, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Use 'em where they can elucidate visual information: style of pottery, design, architecture, etc. periods of art and artifacts; and imagery of places when needed. Good luck with your article...Modernist (talk) 12:06, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The rubbishy waffling section called "Political and religious art" should be the first to go. The distinctions between the periods after the archaic are largely art history dressed up as archaeology, as the main differences between them fall equally under art history. I agree there are too many arhitectural images that aren't very informative, but there are many other types of artefacts that should be illustrated. Johnbod (talk) 20:41, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
FWIW - I agree with Maunus in terms of this article and the state it's in at the moment. When I began working on the Alps it looked like this - all galleries, little text. I removed the galleries, rearranged the images and added lots of text. Maunus is familiar with the topic and capable of expanding and developing the text - which too is important. If the Alps is an indicator, where images have been added at an alarming rate, when this contest is over the images will be added back and that might be the point think about galleries. Just two cents (or more). Truthkeeper (talk) 20:30, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Agriculture

edit

Comments by judges

edit

Comments by others

edit

Charles Babbage

edit

Comments by judges

edit

Comments by others

edit

As a shamefully innumerate creature I nonetheless enjoyed this article greatly, and the authors have made all but the most technical matters beautifully clear even to me. I have left a longish list of minor drafting quibbles at the peer review, but those quibbles don't really detract from my admiration for the article as it now stands. There was good stuff in it before the nominator began overhauling it, and there is a great deal more good stuff now. Hearty applause! Tim riley (talk) 11:36, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Christiaan Huygens

edit
  • Nominator: Charles Matthews (talk · contribs)
  • Start position: [1]
  • Finish position: [2]
  • Peer review:
  • Comments: Aiming to clean up the writing, and give much more context for the scientific work. Large-scale expansion and a few new images. NB some others have contributed, around the beginning of May. I overshot the finish time but don't regret that.

Comments by judges

edit

Comments by others

edit

Sea

edit

Comments by judges

edit

Comments by others

edit

Indeed, wow! The old version should have been classed as a stub (but was classed as C - pah!) & it's already greatly improved. This gets a million hits a year. Some of the new sections seem rather low on links - an article on a huge subject like this very largely functions, for readers past the homework years, as a link farm to more detailed articles. The culture section is pretty dodgy, just covering recent Anglosphere literature and cinema, and lacks any mention of, or link to, marine art, on which we have a lengthy article (by me). Equally there are many pieces of classical music evoking the sea beyond the inevitable Debussy - Wagner's Flying Dutchman to name but one. And where are Homer or Moby Dick? The plan currently includes no section on naval warfare, surely the area of maritime life where WP has the best coverage, and a very important one. Surely much the most important of the "Extractive industries" is fishing (and whaling), which isn't mentioned yet. So lots to do for a really good article. Johnbod (talk) 12:35, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It is in no way finished, and all suggestions for its improvement are welcome. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 12:52, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Is the article about all of Earth's oceans, or is it about large bodies of bodies of water? The article is about both senses of the word, but I don't think they really belong in the same article. – Ypnypn (talk) 23:28, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Check out the talk page. I've been arguing that point for ages... but noone seems to be taking any notice. It used to be aboutt he latter but ever since the massive improvements recently, the article's focus has shifted. But it's not a case of expanding the scope. It's actually a case of changing the topic entirely. Like writing a brilliant essay but for the wrong textbook. The term "sea" is used in about 6 different ways, but it all becomes muddled and confused because they all use the exact same word. While I also analysed the other possible meanings of the word , the two main meanings of "sea" are in the context of the world ocean and the arbitrary subdivisions of the world ocean defined due to cultural/political factors. These MUST be different articles.--Coin945 (talk) 00:02, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Not necessarily - until about 30 seconds ago I had never heard the term World Ocean, and my thinking is that when people use the term "the sea" they mean it as a sort of group noun talking about the world's ocean waters as a whole. Think about it how folks use the term when they drive down to a beach - they call it "the sea" Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:17, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. You're exactly right. And that's why I suggested as a possible solution the "world ocean"-type article should be called "The sea" while the subdivision one should be called "Sea (region)", with a disambiguation page in between. I would advise you to read the talk page as I am literally regurgitating stuff I've already posted there. P.S. You may have not heard of that term before, but it is the technical term for the "group noun talking about the world's ocean waters as a whole" meaning of "sea" that you were talking about. You've probably never heard of it before as you've always had the shortcut. The problem is that that shortcut is also used to describe 5 other things. So ideally I would advise we defer to the technical term and add that it's called "sea" in the terminology section. But if this is not a possibility, I suggest we go for something like the aformentioned "The sea" and "Sea (region)"--Coin945 (talk) 00:32, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Briefly, after noticing this discussion (and the discussions on the talk page), I wondered how other encyclopedias tackle such topics. I looked at the Encyclopedia Britannica entries, and they seem to cover it with "ocean" and "seawater" (plus articles on individual seas and geographical entities). We have, um, slightly more articles than that. One of the weaknesses and strengths of Wikipedia is that the possibility is there for lots of different articles on slightly different topics, when it might be better to merge things and have tighter editorial control and less duplication across articles. I really would urge people to look at how other encyclopedias tackle this, and use that as a starting point, or at least to guide how the broadest, top-level articles here are written. Hopefully the judges will also be aware of how other encyclopedias write on these topics. Also, it is vital that articles like this co-ordinate well with surrounding articles. There is very little point having a really good article at sea if it largely duplicates (or contradicts!) what is in surrounding, closely-linked articles. Co-ordination between articles is something that encyclopedias with tighter editorial control do far better than Wikipedia. Carcharoth (talk) 12:47, 27 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Constellation

edit
  • Nominator: Keilana (talk · contribs)
  • Start position: Previous revision
  • Peer review:
  • Comments: Goals: Get the inline refs up to date, expand the terminology section with etymology/attestations/etc., expand on the Babylonian uranographic and astronomical tradition, get the ridiculously sub-par Greco-Roman section up to par, include more non-Western constellation concepts (esp. Arabic, Hindu, Aborigine, and African), better organize the history section and include dark cloud constellations in a more inclusive "non-Western" section, expand the Asterisms section to include more than just the (*@&#) Big Dipper. And probably more. Keilana|Parlez ici 00:43, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Improvements: Starting this weekend. Keilana|Parlez ici 00:43, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by judges

edit

Comments by others

edit
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:The_Core_Contest/Entries/April2013_archive&oldid=1229152210"