Wikipedia:The Core Contest/Entries/April2015 archive

Below are the submissions for the March/April 2015 running of the Core Contest:

Islamic State of Iraq and the LevantEdit

  • Nominator: Tonystewart14 (talk · contribs)
  • Improvements: See [this page] (external link) for the edits I've made to the page. Disregard anything before 9 March. So far this month, I've fixed all broken links and completed some other reference work.
  • Comments: I recently requested a peer review of this article and believe this contest will also be helpful. It is currently rated as B-class by the Military History WikiProject and I'd like to get it to A-class. The improvements this article could use are likely the opposite of a traditional Core Contest article: it is currently 285 KB in size and has over 500 citations, and there are many instances of one fact being cited several times (which is pointed out in the peer review already) and so it might need some summarizing, removal of unnecessary references, etc. I have already done a light copyedit and general fixes, but I hope to really work on this article throughout March as it currently receives over 50,000 hits per day and has been linked to on the main page for several weeks as it has been a major news item. Tonystewart14 (talk) 22:29, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Comments by judgesEdit

  • Given it functions as a sovereign nation, clearly in scope as a core item. We've had articles submitted before that needed tightening rather than expanding, and agree this is important. cheers, Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 23:23, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
Stats
  • Core-ness: not listed in Vital Level 1–4, but should be about 4 along with Iraq.
  • Condition at the beginning of March: [1]
    • Size: 80,594 characters of readable prose; 280,179 bytes; 15 images (other than flags); 578 references.
  • Condition at the end of April 14: [2]
    • Size: 88,668 characters of readable prose; 304,272 bytes; 18 images; 610 references.
  • Diff: [3] 533 revisions by more than 100 users.
  • Notes: Tonystewart14 made a handful of the 533 edits during the contest period, including trimming, tweaking and tightening. The article is, however, far too heavily trafficked for anyone to have a chance of imposing order. Binksternet (talk) 02:24, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

Comments by othersEdit

  • Worthy choice. With Ebola virus epidemic in West Africa and related articles, this was a key article in 2014, and unfortunately this one seems likely to stay that way. An old-style editing history with zillions of edits, despite being part-protected. Hope the locals are friendly. Johnbod (talk) 09:18, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

English languageEdit

  • Nominator - Maunus (talk · contribs) & Erutuon (talk · contribs) & WeijiBaikeBianji (talk · contribs)
  • Improvements: [4]. From 97 citations to 254. Now a GA.
  • Comments: This article, number 516 in traffic with around 2,5 million views per year, rated level 3 vital, is currently generously rated as B-class. I peer reviewed this article a couple of years ago and not much has happened to the article since then, so now I think it is time to do something about it. It will require some major clean up including spinning out sections that are too detailed to daughter articles, expanding other sections and making sure there is an overall balance in the way different subtopics are represented. And sourcing. Lots of sourcing. User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 01:48, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Since Erutuon is helping greatly with the editing of this article I have added him as a co-nominator, so that he may also receive credit for any improvements.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 00:00, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

Comments by judgesEdit

  • Yes, referencing looks ok at top but they get alot sparser as one scans down the article. Definitely a core article. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 04:05, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
Stats
  • Core-ness: Vital Level 3.
  • Condition at the beginning of March: [5]
    • Size: 54,110 characters of readable prose; 150,343 bytes; 8 images; 97 references.
  • Condition at the end of April 14: [6]
    • Size: 81,204 characters of readable prose; 189,368 bytes; 8 images; 253 references.
  • Diff: [7], more than a thousand revisions.
  • Notes: WeijiBaikeBianji, Erutuon, Maunus, Carlos Rojas77, RoachPeter, Wizymon and Curly Turkey achieved GA level. They dumped some trivial and tangential images for ones that better illustrate the topic, and they added a few spoken word sound files where none existed. The previous prose was extensively overhauled, with scholarly and expert sources given much greater emphasis. Maunus and WeijiBaikeBianji were especially effective in the two jobs of pruning unneeded text, and adding vital concepts. The referencing was whipped into very clean shape. The initial state of the article was messy and choppy, with problems of omission and distraction, but it was not utterly lacking in information. Binksternet (talk) 03:03, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

Comments by othersEdit

Yes, the pageview count for English language is huge, and very likely to increase after the proposed changes. Maunus's peer review from a few years ago has been woefully neglected, and I'm happy to see him turning his hand to improving this article. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 14:17, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

  • "huge" meaning approaching 3 million pa, though especially at this level, improvement is in fact unlikely to make much difference to the numbers. Great choice. Johnbod (talk) 09:15, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
  • The article is comfortably above 3 million page views for 2014 by the Andrew G. West methodology, and the reason I speculate that it will gain more after article improvement is that I saw that happen after I improved IQ classification (which I never expected to be a top 3,000 article when I began working on it). There is something about making an article's wording match reliable sources better that makes it more rich in keywords that get searched up by search engines, which is still one of Wikipedia's main sources of pageviews. Moreover, it wouldn't surprise me to hear that Google may give a boost to pages that are rated as good articles. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 00:25, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
I'd be interested in evidence of the last - I don't think it happens to FAs, which AFAIK show little increase in views. In my experience improved articles with relatively low views can get increased hits, but it doesn't make much difference to popular ones. One thing search engines pick up is the level of changes to a page, so you may get a temporary boost during and after lots of editing. But since the better a page is, the more stable it usually is, if anything improvement might reduce views in the long term. AFAIK we don't currently have a working tool for long term views (do we?) so it's difficult to research. Of course if you get permanent links from pages both inside and outside WP that can make a big difference - the google box is presumably key here. Looking at the West list, I notice that Romanticism, which was hugely expanded and improved by myself and others, initially for this contest in March 2012 ("Honorable Mention (or Equal Third Prizes if you wish)") seems in fact to have lost views significantly since then: Feb 2011, 188K and Feb 2014, 161K, Feb 2015, 127K. Of course the shift to the uncounted mobile etc devices is part of this. Johnbod (talk) 17:19, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
That's an interesting example you have cited there. I'll have to look into this further. (Feel free to take this issue to my talk page if you would like to continue this interesting discussion.) -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 17:48, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

Maunus is adding so many good edits to English language this month that I have mostly shifted my own editing focus to that article. But see my update below about Psychology. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 02:27, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

JobEdit

  • Nominator - Andrew Davidson (talk · contribs)
  • Improvements
  • Comments: This was my entry last year but I didn't get very far with it, due to the pressure of my own job. It hasn't made much progress since then so it seems efficient to have another go, rather than starting afresh. Andrew D. (talk) 10:58, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

Comments by judgesEdit

  • (chuckle) as good as a reason as any to choose the article...huge scope for vast improvement of broad/core topic.Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:53, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Looks like Andrew Davidson was unable to clear his schedule enough to work on the article. No edits from him during the contest period. Binksternet (talk) 03:12, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

Comments by othersEdit

  • Call it 10K hits per month. There are various ways to take the subject, which is still pretty much a blank slate. Johnbod (talk) 09:20, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
  • @Andrew Davidson: I've gone through all the level 3 articles, updating the status. This is one of only a handful at that level which remain assessed as "start" articles, so it would definitely be great to see this one improved at least one level. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 20:38, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

Zainul AbedinEdit

Comments by judgesEdit

  • Agree that it is narrower in scope than other articles chosen, but I have considered these before if a real whizz-bang effort in improving them has taken place. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:55, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
Stats
  • Core-ness: Not listed in Vital Level 1–4.
  • Condition at the beginning of March: [8]
    • Size: 4,733 characters of readable prose; 7,710 bytes; 5 images (other than flags); 1 reference.
  • Condition at the end of April 14: [9]
    • Size: 4,731 characters of readable prose; 9,122 bytes; 5 images; 1 reference.
  • Diff: [10], 13 revisions by 3 users.
  • Notes: Ibrahim Husain Meraj made a few improvements to the article, especially in adding categories, but the text was little changed, the alarming shortage of references was not addressed, and the maintenance template is still there on top. Binksternet (talk) 03:20, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

Comments by othersEdit

  • Frankly this seems outside the intended range of subjects, or at least very marginal. The figure quoted includes a boost over his birthday anniversary in December. Usually he gets a steady 1400+change per month, maybe 17K pa Johnbod (talk) 17:48, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
Not clear to me that this is much more marginal than Ottonian art (25k per year), which was able to win nonetheless - so I would say let him have a go, at least it will do something to counter the systemic bias against non-Western art.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 18:00, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
Fair enough, but it was clear to me. And his style seems very Western. Johnbod (talk) 18:15, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

Sustainable developmentEdit

  • Comments: Messy article for a messy concept. 886th in traffic on en.[12] Potentially controversial topic which is currently heavily tagged, so who knows how easy it will be to re-work the article, but it's worth a try. Guettarda (talk) 17:39, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

Comments by judgesEdit

  • Agree - really broad topic and a lot of potential for improvement. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:56, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
Stats
  • Core-ness: Vital Level 4.
  • Condition at the beginning of March: [13]
    • Size: 27,714 characters of readable prose; 62,606 bytes; 8 images; 78 references.
  • Condition at the end of April 14: [14]
    • Size: 26,973 characters of readable prose; 59,498 bytes; 9 images; 75 references.
  • Diff: [15], 149 revisions by 10 users.
  • Notes: Guettarda reworked the text, merging sections and reordering the layout, pruning the external links and further reading sections, and sorting some references. The history section was expanded while several fractured definitions were woven together. However, the article is still tagged with multiple issues. Binksternet (talk) 04:22, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

Comments by othersEdit

  • Good luck - I wrote Good governance early on in my Wikipedia editing days, and man, was it hard to do a good survey, because it too sits in that realm of amorphous political speak, and ambiguity. Let me know if you need access to any sources, I have a good Academic library access. Sadads (talk) 15:32, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

VegetableEdit

  • Nominator - Cwmhiraeth (talk · contribs)
  • Improvements - Here is the diff covering my entry. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 17:48, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Comments: I hope to improve the referencing including doing away with the "citation needed" and "This section requires expansion" tags. Expect to see some drastic alterations to the article over the course of the next month. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 18:13, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

Comments by judgesEdit

  • yes - really broad topic and a lot of potential for improvement. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:58, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
Stats
  • Core-ness: Vital Level 3.
  • Condition at the beginning of March: [16]
    • Size: 9,866 characters of readable prose; 22,288 bytes; 12 images; 25 references.
  • Condition at the end of April 14: [17]
    • Size: 18,915 characters of readable prose; 38,194 bytes; 17 images; 43 references.
  • Diff: [18], 67 revisions by 16 users.
  • Notes: Cwmhiraeth doubled the readable prose in the article, almost doubled the refs, and gave the reader an attractive table of the most common examples, and a useful table of the larger countries that produce vegetables. All of the maintenance tags were addressed and removed. Binksternet (talk) 04:36, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

Comments by othersEdit

This is a very good article to work on. Simply defining the scope of the topic with good sourcing could be helpful (and a fair amount of work). Finding sources to provide a truly international view would be a good idea. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 16:11, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

The Communist ManifestoEdit

Comments by judgesEdit

  • Already tidy but pretty short. Could be interesting....interesting choice anyways. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:59, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
Stats
  • Core-ness: Vital Level 4.
  • Condition at the beginning of March: [19]
    • Size: 10,960 characters of readable prose; 22,105 bytes; 5 images; 26 references.
  • Condition at the end of April 14: [20]
    • Size: 19,046 characters of readable prose; 28,566 bytes; 7 images; 15 references.
  • Diff: [21], 55 revisions by 5 users.
  • Notes: Indopug began improving the article in early January, so its condition at the start of the contest period was, unfortunately for the competition, pretty good compared to two months earlier. Indopug greatly trimmed the references while almost doubling the readable prose, especially in the history section. However, the article was given nine empty sections in need of expansion, with maintenance tags asking for expansion; it appears that an ambitious goal was not met. Binksternet (talk) 04:54, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

Comments by othersEdit

  • Nearly 47 K hits in the last 30 days [22], and 324 on Christmas Day. Note that Indopug's edits earlier in February have so far given a net reduction of ~ 5K bytes. Johnbod (talk) 12:58, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

PsychologyEdit

  • Nominator - WeijiBaikeBianji (talk · contribs)
  • Improvements needed to this level 2 vital article that has long been B class include better sourcing (as usual) and a more balanced presentation of the current branches of psychology as a field of research and practice. Thanks for organizing this effort to improve vital articles. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 14:27, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Update I'll hardly have time to do much more than gather references for Psychology before the month of March 2015 is up, but I'm glad to see talk page discussion of other editors joining the effort to improve the article, so better late than never. My personal style is to dig deeply into the sources before touching much article texts, stirring up talk page discussion meanwhile, and that process seems to be building editor interest in fixing Psychology. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 02:31, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Further update Another editor, groupuscule, saw the discussion about improving Psychology, and he is doing some great work on an outline for improving the article. So I'm grateful that the contest prompted editor discussion about improvements to that article, and look forward to fixing it with him and other editors as the contest winds up. (I'm more busy now on English language, where the editing has been very productive and collaborative.) -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 00:44, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

Comments by judgesEdit

Stats
  • Core-ness: Vital Level 2.
  • Condition at the beginning of March: [23]
    • Size: 44,394 characters of readable prose; 85,149 bytes; 19 images; 97 references.
  • Condition at the end of April 14: [24]
    • Size: 53,482 characters of readable prose; 97,202 bytes; 19 images; 113 references.
  • Diff: [25], 21 revisions by 13 users.
  • Notes: This very core article was not in terrible shape at the start of the contest, but its text was reworked primarily by Groupuscule who clarified the lead section and expanded the history section while increasing the global breadth. Note that an extensive draft improvement was posted by Groupuscule on 24 April, after the contest had concluded. Binksternet (talk) 05:08, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

Comments by othersEdit

  • Another great choice. Well over a million hits a year. Johnbod (talk) 16:43, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Ooh, exciting. I wonder if I could be of any assistance in this revision. groupuscule (talk) 23:24, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

Taj MahalEdit

Comments by judgesEdit

  • Good luck with it - definitely notable, maybe not as 'core' as some other choices but an exceptional effort on a narrower article might do good in the competition. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 19:47, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
Stats
  • Core-ness: Vital Level 4.
  • Condition at the beginning of March: [26]
    • Size: 24,476 characters of readable prose; 53,091 bytes; 54 images; 74 references.
  • Condition at the end of April 14: [27]
    • Size: 24,211 characters of readable prose; 51,935 bytes; 49 images; 80 references.
  • Diff: [28], 22 revisions by 16 users.
  • Notes: This article started the contest period as GA level, so it was not in terrible shape. Some references were added, and a commented-out section was finally deleted. A gallery of replicas was removed—thank goodness. Incremental improvement was demonstrated. Binksternet (talk) 05:42, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

Comments by othersEdit

  • Well, more typically 6-7K per day [29], but that's still a huge number. Great stuff! Johnbod (talk) 16:33, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

Inheritance (object-oriented programming)Edit

  • Nominator - Suman420 (talk · contribs)
  • Improvements: I've made some correction...and still I've lots of things to do. See here and see here
  • Comments: This Article needed an expert attention. I've tried my best to make it a better one.

Comments by judgesEdit

Comments by othersEdit

CultureEdit

*Nominator - Maunus (talk · contribs)

  • Improvements:
  • Comments: Sorry to make a second nomination, probably not a good idea to divide my efforts, but I just took a look at this article which used to be a huge mess, but basically a comprehensive introduction to the topic written by an expert editor (the late Slrubenstein) and I noticed that it has been reduced to an even worse mess that does not even provide the basics of the concept. So I will have to do some work here anyway, so I might as well enter it as well. The article is Level 1 vital and has around 100k views per year.

Comments by judgesEdit

  • Obvious choice and great one to improve. One would hope that some of the book sources listed but not reffed can be converted into references. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 02:58, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
Stats
  • Core-ness: Vital Level 1.
  • Condition at the beginning of March: [30]
    • Size: 21,668 characters of readable prose; 40,031 bytes; 7 images; 28 references.
  • Condition at the end of April 14: [31]
    • Size: 23,209 characters of readable prose; 40,424 bytes; 12 images; 22 references.
  • Diff: [32], 40 revisions by 8 users.
  • Notes: Maunus made the first few paragraphs readable rather than a recursive mess of definitions and pronunciations. He chose better images, and deleted a tangential and unneeded section about death denial based on the writings of just one person. The rest of the article was in fair condition, so it was not changed. Binksternet (talk) 05:19, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

Comments by othersEdit

  • Important article. I remember when Steve asked me to work with him to fix up that article. Grabbed some sources, which then sat on my desk unopened for many months before finally being returned to the library. I miss Steve. Guettarda (talk) 19:16, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
Yeah, me too. That is partly the reason I have to improve this article now, I'll go back to the older versions and see what of his text I can source and salvage.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 19:43, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
  • I've commented there a bit. Key article, but should not be overwhelmed by anthropological and cultural studies perspectives, though they are of course central. Johnbod (talk) 17:08, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

LandEdit

  • Nominator - Squeamish Ossifrage (talk · contribs)
  • Improvements: coming soon
  • Comments: Level 2 Vital Article currently in a sorry state (generously described as "start-class") that fails to address much of the topic at all. This is going to represent several weeks of work for me, but I should be able to get it into a shape that the project (and I) can be proud of. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 23:05, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

Comments by judgesEdit

  • Wow that's tiny...and alotta room for improvement. Loads of referencing needed - might be difficult to know where to draw the line between this article and plate tectonics, geology and geography - but some summarising and linking necessary I think. Good luck, will be interesting to see the result. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:40, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
  • It looks like Squeamish Ossifrage did not make any edits to the article during the contest period. Binksternet (talk) 06:18, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

Comments by othersEdit

MiddlemarchEdit

  • Nominator - MasterOfHisOwnDomain (talk · contribs), and Rwood128 (talk · contribs)
  • Improvements: diff (from March 5 to April 14) — 19 to 61 refs; 3 new sections of prose; tightening of prose (largely invisible change) etc.
  • Comments: Hailed as one of the greatest novels in the English language; sadly not one of the greatest articles on Wikipedia. Generously given a C class but contains essentially a bloated plot summary, an unreferenced themes discussion and a character list. Not sure of the time I will be able to devote to this, but feel a duty to enter the Core Contest nonetheless; let's see what happens. MasterOfHisOwnDomain (talk) 23:46, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

Comments by judgesEdit

  • Yes, an overhaul with a large amount of scholarly review needed and plot trimmed for starters..interesting choice. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:42, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
Stats
  • Core-ness: Vital Level 4.
  • Condition at the beginning of March: [33]
    • Size: 18,969 characters of readable prose; 39,548 bytes; 5 images; 21 references.
  • Condition at the end of April 14: [34]
    • Size: 20,941 characters of readable prose; 47,983 bytes; 5 images; 68 references + notes.
  • Diff: [35], revisions by users.
  • Notes: Primary contest editors were Sadads, Rwood128 and MasterOfHisOwnDomain. Most of the work was done by Rwood128 and MasterOfHisOwnDomain, but Sadads performed two significant prunings of poor prose. Together, the editors tightened the prose and tripled the references. The images were augmented with pull quotes. The bloated plot section was reduced, and maintenance tags removed as fixed. Binksternet (talk) 04:20, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

Comments by othersEdit

  • Yes please! There is tons of scholarship on this novel! If you need help finding/retrieving items, I have access to a fairly good academic library. Sadads (talk) 00:12, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
    • @Brianboulton: I know its listed as one of your possible projects. I might also help, even though I generally am not a big fan of the novel (not my tastes at all). Sadads (talk) 01:02, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
      • No chance I can do anything on this in the foreseeable future. This is a project that at one time I was going to work on with the dear, departed Wadewitz, but we never got it together. You, or anyone else, are welcome to develop this – I would love to see a decent article here. Brianboulton (talk) 09:07, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
        • Many thanks for the support everyone, and @Sadads: for the offer of help (although I also have access to an academic library so should be okay). MasterOfHisOwnDomain (talk) 11:20, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
          @MasterOfHisOwnDomain: I will try, but have a few too many things on my plate right now. Probably a good evening or two work in me later in the month, looking through scholarship.

@Brianboulton: yeah, I have a few too many projects that I was working on with Wadewitz, that have lingered on the backburner because of the emotional baggage, and the huge scholarly strength she added to them. I hope you get a chance to be involved, Sadads (talk) 14:17, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

I see the plot summary has swelled by about 300 words from the version I left seven years ago – and I was looking to cut around 200 words from my draft! If the project takes off, I would be prepared to work on this summary and trim it to around half of its current size. Keep me informed by all means. Brianboulton (talk) 16:49, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

Added @Rwood128: to the nominators (pending his approval), as he has been doing a great deal of work on the article during the span of the competition and deserves credit. MasterOfHisOwnDomain (talk) 20:11, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, MasterOfHisOwnDomain, but I wouldn't have been encouraged to do anything if you hadn't had the idea of nominating Middlemarch.Rwood128 (talk) 20:46, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

Torrent fileEdit

Comments by judgesEdit

  • This choice is certainly wider and more general than the other one. I have no idea how much extra content can be put in it. I think it can be considered broad/core in this day and age. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 09:43, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

Comments by othersEdit

  • I think this is way too specific for the purposes of the contest. Maybe BitTorrent would be suitable, but this is just a computer file type. Not a "core" article. --Laser brain (talk) 17:49, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
I think after last years contest the concept of "core" has been greatly widened, to the degree that it is hard to exclude anything.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 18:11, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
Hardly, but in any case the judges are supposed to take the degree of "coreness" into account, so we should not perhaps worry too much at this stage, except to indicate that a subject may suffer in judging on that account (especially given that there is such a strong field this time). This one has very high views, over 70K per month, but that is a feature of articles on computing, where other clear and up to date online sources are fewer. Johnbod (talk) 18:16, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

Maya civilizationEdit

  • Nominator - Simon Burchell (talk · contribs)
  • Improvements: diff, pending GA FAC review, otherwise I think I'm done...
  • Comments: Poorly referenced article, well structured but loaded with erroneous statements, incomplete sections, and references to unreliable sources (or to reliable sources that don't support the text). I have been meaning to work on this article for a long time, and the Core Contest finally gave me the motivation to do so.

Comments by judgesEdit

Stats
  • Core-ness: Vital Level 4.
  • Condition at the beginning of March: [36]
    • Size: 37,240 characters of readable prose; 64,808 bytes; 30 images; 36 references.
  • Condition at the end of April 14: [37]
    • Size: 100,751 characters of readable prose; 188,377 bytes; 50 images; 391 references.
  • Diff: [38], more than 1,000 revisions mostly by Simon Burchell.
  • Notes: Simon Burchell greatly expanded the article, almost tripling the readable prose and the overall size. Better and more images were added, and the references were expanded more than 10x. These improvements led to the conferring of GA status a month after the contest concluded. Binksternet (talk) 03:28, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

Comments by othersEdit

  • Brilliant! ~85K views a month. Johnbod (talk) 13:51, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Hurrah! Well worth fixing. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 02:32, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Wow, this is amazing improvement. I had not expected to ever see this article in such great shape. Thanks Simon!·maunus · snunɐɯ· 16:44, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

NewsEdit

  • Nominator - groupuscule (talk · contribs)
  • Improvements: forthcoming
  • Comments: Though structurally it would seem to be a cornerstone of the "Journalism" family of pages, the "News" article is rather a mess. After two test edits and some perusal of the literature, this groupuscule feels a contribution can be made. Most of the work, for several reasons, must be done in a text document offline, and uploaded all at once.
It's great to see all of the articles on this page that people are going to work on; a nice antidote to the ghost town feeling one can sometimes get around here.

Comments by judgesEdit

  • Wow - tiny lead - empty sections, and lots of one line paragraphs. Lots to improve. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:52, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
Stats
  • Core-ness: Vital Level 3.
  • Condition at the beginning of March: [39]
    • Size: 10,424 characters of readable prose; 16,685 bytes; 1 image; 20 references.
  • Condition at the end of April 14: [40]
    • Size: 72,326 characters of readable prose; 148,680 bytes; 9 images; 315 references.
  • Diff: [41], 25 revisions by 13 users.
  • Notes: The article was in terrible shape, with three maintenance tags. Groupuscule made seven massive edits to the article, expanding the readable prose by about 7x, the references by 15x, and adding some more appropriate images. Binksternet (talk) 03:41, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

Comments by othersEdit

  • Parts seem good, others not at all. Loads more links wanted, and better images. Some 250K views pa. Johnbod (talk) 02:49, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

David HumeEdit

  • Nominator - Pgallert (talk · contribs)
  • Improvements: Prhartcom (talk · contribs) made the following comment at Talk:David Hume/GA4: Currently this article presents a list of inline citations in the Notes and a list of citations in the References, so what are the References—weren't the Notes the References? Why can't the References be referred to inline? If the References are not referenced inline, then what is the difference between them and the Further reading? I'm not sure whether 'gnomish' edits are eligible here, but starting here (well, actually starting 4 days / 10 diffs earlier, but that was before March 1) I am going through every reference, add isbns, correct paginations, add author first names and urls, link Hume's own words to a library that offers open access, and so on. I won't be finished by March 31, so do feel free to disqualify this nomination. Just thought that such streamlining and copyediting is important, too.
    • It turned out that I also had to read every reference in order to check whether it really supports the fact. So, as announced, I am not finished but only somewhat halfway through.
    • The article has now more maintenance tags as before, and several of the references have no pagination. But at least this is now spelled out clearly instead of being buried in some obfuscating list-of-everything
    • Anyway, here's the diff: [42]

Comments by judgesEdit

Comments by othersEdit

  • Good idea. You've got till April 14th in fact, after the recent extension. Johnbod (talk) 20:33, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

ThangkaEdit

  • Nominator - Johnbod (talk · contribs)
  • Improvements: at start was this; Final diff [43] - fwiw. Almost all me. It's not an easy diff to read. The old "History" section was all about Nepal, in a very boosterish way. This has been trimmed & moved to "Nepal", with a completely new history section added, and other changes. Johnbod (talk) 17:24, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Comments: I wasn't going to enter, but I have done quite a lot on this in the contest period, so I might as well. Thanka are Tibetan Buddhist paintings, normally on cloth, that are now quite well known in the West. Asian art is mostly very poorly covered (Japan and to a lesser extent China excepted), and this gets more than any other topical article on Tibetan art at about 70K views per annum. So far a new history section added, new better refs used, & a fair bit of poor stuff removed. About 11K bytes added, after removals. More to come I hope. Johnbod (talk) 16:52, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

Comments by judgesEdit

  • Interesting choice - I see this as quite core-y and a good one for countering systemic bias.Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:15, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

Comments by othersEdit