Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Wiki Loves Nigeria/Writing Contest/Jury discussion

< Wikipedia:Wiki Loves Nigeria‎ | Writing Contest

General comment

edit

Hi Cullen328, Samtar, Anthere, FloNight and Rberchie. Thanks for your willingness to help. However, we currently do not have a mailing list where you can discuss on the reviewing process. I think its might be a good idea to discuss here. Let me know what you think. Cheers! Wikic¤l¤gyt@lk to M£ 17:42, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

For the Wiki Loves Women writing contest, we used a google spreadsheet to vote. It seemed to work well. Sydney Poore/FloNight♥♥♥♥ 17:47, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. We did the same for the French part. Was very practical. Anthere (talk)
It seems like a brilliant idea to me. Sydney Poore, could you please help to design the Google spreadsheet? Wikic¤l¤gyt@lk to M£ 23:42, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I'll create it and share. Sydney Poore/FloNight♥♥♥♥ 23:45, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Sydney Poore, I lack words to say thank you. But for better choice of words THANK YOU. Am so grateful Best regards. Wikic¤l¤gyt@lk to M£ 23:49, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I will be happy to use the Google spreadsheet. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 00:37, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I have now read all of the articles and done a preliminary evaluation. How do I access the spreadsheet? Cullen328 Let's discuss it 07:45, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @Cullen328:, I'm waiting to hear the outcome of the discussion below to send the link to the google spreadsheet. Sydney Poore/FloNight♥♥♥♥ 14:20, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]


Article reviewing process

edit

Dear all,

There was an ongoing discussion on how the best articles should be selected. We think the Jurists will find it interesting. Wikic¤l¤gyt@lk to M£ 09:24, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

User:FloNight

Hi everyone,

I reviewed the rules for the writing contest and have a few questions about the selection of winners.

1. The rules state "Participant can work on several articles as they want, but they can only propose one article for the best article prize" So, I wonder if the contestants have selected which article they want to put forward for the best article prize? If not, do we need to put a post on their talk page asking for their selection. 

2. By looking at Category:Wiki_Loves_Nigeria_Writing_Contest, we can see the complete list of articles. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Wiki_Loves_Nigeria_Writing_Contest

By my count there are a total of 120 articles that could be selected for best article.

3. There 31 contestants listed so obviously some people wrote more than one article. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wiki_Loves_Nigeria/Writing_Contest/Contestants

4. The instructions say for each jurist to select the 3 best articles and email it. Would it be easier if jurists added them directly to the google spreadsheet? 

Sydney 

User:Wikicology Hi Sydney,

Thanks for pointing this out, but I think it might be a good idea for the Jury to go ahead with the selection process.

The jurists may also go ahead to add the 3 best article to the Google spreadsheet if it will be easier.

User:Olaniyan Olushola Dear Sydney and Isaac,

Thank you for your contributions.

@Sydney, I am grateful for accepting our invitation and all your perfect additions. As per your observations, they are very valid. However, I think we need to bend the rule at the moment. Because, if we  relied on the contestants to select their best article for nomination. There respond time might pro long our decision making process Therefore, I suggest that the jurists should go ahead to select the best articles as per their professional instinct and experience. 

Submitted.

User:Anthere Whilst I do understand your point, I do not think this is very reasonable actually Olushola. 120 articles is a LOT.

This was precisely the reason why in the WLW writing contest, I had required from all teams to select ONE favorite article because I did not want to swamp the jury into considering over 100 articles.

So.... My suggestion would be that your team do a preselection, by prunning the least relevant articles, so that the jury ends up with a more reasonable number. It is often easy to identify "least good" ones and it does not need 6-8 people to go and uncheck those. Fewer people to do so is good.

Well. I will follow the process you will decide for. But if there are 120 articles to review... expect that it will take me a LONG time :)

Florence

I agree that 120 articles is a lot but I have now quickly read them all doing a preliminary ranking on paper and have identified about 25 that I believe are the most promising and deserving a closer look. I will do a second, more in-depth reading of those 25 articles while waiting for further instructions. Any further input from other jurists is appreciated. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 18:10, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  •   Comment:. Personally, I trust Cullen328's judgment. I think we can work with the 25 articles selected by him. Samtar, Anthere, Northamerica1000, FloNight and Rberchie; what do you think? FloNight, can you tell us more about the Google spreadsheet? Cheers! Wikic¤l¤gyt@lk to M£ 19:08, 5 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've started reading and have a list, too. I was thinking that several of us that have time could each create a list of 25 articles that we think are the best. Then we compare which of those are on more than one persons list. And the whole group can vote for best article from the ones that show up on more than one jurists list. We can give interested jurists a few days to write their 25 articles on the spreadsheet. If that plan sounds okay, I'll share the link to the spreadsheet by email today. Sydney Poore/FloNight♥♥♥♥ 19:39, 5 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds interesting. Cullen328, Samtar, Anthere, and Rberchie; what do you think about Sydney's suggestion? Wikic¤l¤gyt@lk to M£ 19:58, 5 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
On my talk page (here), I stated that I was going to "pass" on becoming involved, meaning that I have decided to not participate. Sorry if there was any miscommunication on my part. North America1000 19:11, 5 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
No worries. Thanks for the clarification. Wikic¤l¤gyt@lk to M£ 19:16, 5 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Once I have access to the spreadsheet, I will add my 25 articles. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 20:02, 5 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wikicology, I went ahead and sent a link to the google spreadsheet to Cullen328, Samtar, Anthere, and Rberchie. I told them to add their 25 articles. I also said to let me know if they don't have time to select 25, and they can join in the next stage voting on the finalists. Sydney Poore/FloNight♥♥♥♥ 21:20, 5 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
That's great. Thank you. Wikic¤l¤gyt@lk to M£ 21:28, 5 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
FloNight hi. Can you share it with fdevouard §§@§§ gmail.com ? Thanks Anthere (talk) 02:45, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you FloNight,Cullen328, Samtar, Anthere, and Rberchie , what a wonderful deliberation!!!. I have been following the discussions in the background.I think the approach suggested by Sydney, will be ok for the voting.However, since each jurist have received the google spread sheet.We need to be specific on the number of days needed for the review. Regards Olaniyan Olushola (talk) 05:05, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I have not received anything... Anthere (talk)
Re-sent to the gmail address. Sydney Poore/FloNight♥♥♥♥ 16:17, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]


First round

edit

Hi Cullen328, Samtar Anthere, and Rberchie. Please, if you have evaluated and recorded the best 25 articles on the spreadsheet, kindly forward it to Sydney Poore. We expect the first round of the reviewing process to end on 15th March 2016. Cheers. Wikic¤l¤gyt@lk to M£ 15:46, 10 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Mine are on the spreadsheet. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 15:54, 10 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
ok. I put my first selection on the datasheet. It is over 25 but well... I take it the favorite will emerge as all of us make our short list. Anthere (talk)
@Wikicology: please give me up to monday I have been very busy and haven't had time to do so.Regards--Rberchie (talk) 18:18, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
No worries, Rberchie. Please forward it to Sydney Poore when you are done with it. Wikic¤l¤gyt@lk to M£ 18:21, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, Samtar and Rberchie. Trust you are fine. However, we are suppose to have rounded up the first stage of this review by last week Friday,11 March 2016. Regrettably, you are yet to submit your data. Let us know today , Thursday 17 March 2016 if you are too busy to handle this task. Then, Sydney Poore Should go ahead to release the result of the first stage based on what we have on ground. Olaniyan Olushola (talk) 07:54, 17 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hi Olaniyan Olushola Anthere Cullen328, Samtar , and Rberchie, I went ahead and calculated the articles for Round Two based on the submissions of myself, Anthere, and Cullen328. Olaniyan Olushola, I started prior to seeing your post here today. There are nine articles that were submitted by all three of us. I advanced those to the Second Round. They are in the same google spreadsheet in the Round Two tab.
  • My suggestion is that Samtar and Rberchie join in voting in the Second Round which will be much easier to do than reviewing the original 120 articles. Let me know if there is agreement to go ahead with this plan for advancing to the next round. Sydney Poore/FloNight♥♥♥♥ 20:20, 17 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. Thank you Sydney. Wikic¤l¤gyt@lk to M£ 22:11, 17 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hello. Sorry, I was travelling the last few days. I will look at the articles. Anthere (talk)
Hi Anthere, Welcome back from your trip. Hope you agree with Sydney on her proposition to advance the review to the next stage.Olaniyan Olushola (talk) 22:31, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Sydney Poore, Anthere, Cullen328! I trust you're fine. Please when will the result be announced? Warm regards. Wikic¤l¤gyt@lk to M£ 20:39, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • So far only me and Anthere have voted. I'm expecting Cullen328 to vote. After this reminder, we'll wait a few more days. Sydney Poore/FloNight♥♥♥♥ 21:03, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, Sydney. I will contact Cullen asap. Wikic¤l¤gyt@lk to M£ 21:08, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I will post my final choices after I am done with work for today. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 21:24, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I'll look for your selections. :-) Sydney Poore/FloNight♥♥♥♥ 02:37, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
A big thank you to all the participating Jurists, we will really appreciate if the final result will be released on or before the end of tomorrow 26 March 2016.Olaniyan Olushola (talk) 19:26, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hi,Sydney Poore,Cullen328,Anthere trust you are fine. We sincerely appreciate your wonderful job on this project. We will appreciate if you could come up with your final position on the selection process.Olaniyan Olushola (talk) 22:07, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I am not sure what our next step is here, Olaniyan Olushola. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 00:42, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Cullen328, thank you for your patient. Sydney Poore had promised to collate and release the final result any moment from now. Olaniyan Olushola (talk) 22:37, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Is it possible to announce at least some of the winners? There were a lot of different categories proposed for this contest and only one seems to be being discussed as difficult to judge. Victuallers (talk) 12:28, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Wiki_Loves_Nigeria/Writing_Contest/Jury_discussion&oldid=1078239350"