Wikipedia talk:WikiCup

Active discussions
WikiCup content needing review
viewedit

Featured content

Good Topic Candidates

Featured pictures

DYK

GAN

The Core ContestEdit

WP:The Core Contest is being run from 1st June to 15th July and may interest WikiCup competitors. It involves choosing an important topic in your area of interest and working on it over six weeks. If you get it to GA or even FA standard, it's likely to give you many bonus points in the WikiCup: the WP:VIT3 articles typically have articles in >50 language. The contest has £250 in prizes to distribute. FemkeMilene (talk) 12:34, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

Source reviews?Edit

Hi

Just wondering if source reviews count towards a FAC review for WikiCup points? I have done one here, looking at the quality of sources and spot checks, but not sure if I'm allowed to count that. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 10:22, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

I assume the rules haven't changed since 2020, even though the wording/explicit description was. In 2020, not only did a source review count, but you could do a prose and/or image review for the same FAC and count them separately. Not sure if that still holds but a source review should still be a review, at least. — Bilorv (talk) 11:20, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
Cwmhiraeth has since ruled that you can only claim once for reviewing an FAC. But that can be a source review. Gog the Mild (talk) 11:33, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
Indeed, a source review counts. The main problem with featured article candidate reviews is limitations in relation to the bot, which cannot distinguish one type of review from another. When checking FAR claims, I mainly check whether the review has been sufficiently thorough to warrant the award of points. I changed this rule before the start of the 2021 WikiCup because I wanted the FAR to be more comparable with a GAR. And @Hog Farm: can note that it is no longer necessary to state during a review that the reviewer intends to claim WikiCup points. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 12:49, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
Ah OK, thanks. I think one or two FAC people complained about the not-declaring thing didn't they, but if we've decided it's not necessary then great. I hadn't been doing it anyway, I forgot.  — Amakuru (talk) 18:10, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
It's not necessary. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:13, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

DYKEdit

Hi, I think I'm ok to claim points for Walter Donaldson (snooker player) as a DYK because I nominated it before it became a GA, but please could someone confirm whether this is the case? Thanks. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 01:21, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

Yes. As long as you nominated it for DYK before you nominated it for GA then you can. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 06:15, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
Indeed, it qualified as a 5x expansion and The C of E is correct. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 07:37, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
Thanks both. Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 08:37, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
Just for future reference, it's if the article was suitable for promotion as creation/expansion, not if it was nominated before GA. I could see someone expanding/creating an article, it flying through a GA, and then nominating all within 7 days, which would still count. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 10:47, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

Good topic questionEdit

Bit of a good topic edge case—I got The 1975 (2019 song) promoted to FA this year, and it's listed as such in the Notes on a Conditional Form good topic, but even without that promotion it still would have been a part of the topic, as a GA. The promotion was after the GT nomination opened, but before it closed. Is that 5 points? — Bilorv (talk) 09:56, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

My understanding of the rules is that whether an article in a GT is GA or FA it's the same, so I don't see that promotion from GA to FA during the GT process would change the WikiCup points. Kingsif (talk) 14:01, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
So 0 points then? I didn't get it to GA during this year and you need some contributing article in the current year to claim points for any part of the topic. — Bilorv (talk) 14:37, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
That's how I interpret the rules; as I understand it, you didn't nominate the GT and only contributed to that one article. It's only natural for the status to be updated when the article class changes, but the GT qualified pre-FA and the thing that might have made it borderline would be if you'd improved it to FA as part of the GT effort. Still great work, obviously FA points! (And if nobody else does soon, I'll check your crown and four award noms for it.) Kingsif (talk) 14:51, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
Yeah it's absolutely not a big deal, more a rule curiosity. — Bilorv (talk) 18:24, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
I agree with Kingsif's interpretation of the rules. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 18:56, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

WithdrawEdit

I would like to withdraw. I lost interest. SL93 (talk) 22:16, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

To clarify, the reviews of my work can't keep up well compared to my activity. I feel that the points for editors aren't a valid reflection due to DYKs, GAs, and such relying on reviews that may not be close to timely. For DYK, it can take a long time for an approved article to appear on the main page. I thought that I had two GAs that would help, but I withdrew both of them yesterday due to the wait. One of my articles was nominated for GA on January 3. I learned from multiple sources while doing research that GA nominations tend to be reviewed faster if the nominator reviews articles, but I feel that my GA reviews likely aren't sufficient. I feel that I have no room to review GAs and especially FAs - I have no degree in anything involving writing, I can't remember the entire MOS off the top of my head, and I sent my own GA nominations to the copyeditors group before nominating them. I'm not using my disability as a crutch, but another truth of the matter is that I don't feel right reviewing GAs and especially FAs as someone who couldn't finish college because no one cared to give extra help to someone diagnosed with high-functioning autism. I have enough knowledge to review DYKs, but that is it for reviewing. It's not just my inability to review GAs for reviews of my own work in return or for Wikicup points, but it seems to me that I don't have the right to review such nominations of people who are clearly more smarter than I am. I'm not trying to downgrade myself, but those are my true thoughts. SL93 (talk) 06:27, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
@SL93: thanks for your extremely candid and honest statements here, and I'm sorry that you're feeling disillusioned with some of the article assessment processes. I completely agree with you that there are some fundamental issues with the way things are working at the moment, including nominations hanging around for ages and also an extremely inconsistent approach to issues affecting article quality, both at GAN and FAC. Unfortunately I'm not sure there's a quick fix to this though. The root of the problem is that we have a fairly fundamental shortage of people able and willing to contribute to article review processes. Or at least that's my feeling (I haven't checked the stats). Back in the heydey of Wikipedia, around 2007, you could expect a GA or FA to whizz through quickly, and there'd be plenty of people willing to jump into copyedits and peer reviews as well. Now many of those people have left the project, and the newcomers haven't been sufficient to replace them. This, coupled with our "volunteer" model which means there are very few dedicated roles and nobody is obliged to do anything, means that it's inevitable that the few reviewers we have will (a) veer towards reviewing the topics that interest them, and (b) end up in an unofficial quid-pro-quo system where small groups of people review each other's stuff on a mutual basis. The trouble with (b) of course, is that this carries a massive expectation with it, that you'll be able and willing to review. That leaves people like yourself, for whom that process doesn't come naturally, forced to either (1) review anyway, knowing you might not do a good job, or (2) do no reviews and face having to wait long periods for your own articles to be assessed. Neither of those things is correct, but again it's hard to come up with a clean way to resolve it. Forcing reviewers to tackle older noms before newer ones would not be good, because again we all have our specialisms and speaking personally I would not feel comfortable reviewing a medical article while I'd be happy to do a football one.
Anyway, going back to your specific case, I know you from the DYK project and I think you've actually built up a huge amount of goodwill from the community this year as a result of your stepping into the breach there after we sadly lost Yoninah - almost single-handedly building hook sets for several weeks when nobody else was doing so. Even if you don't do reviews yourself, that work counts for a lot and I'm sure there would be people who'd be happy to help you out if you could somehow communicate to them that you need it. (Although that said, how to actually do that communication without getting accused of canvassing is another problem that I don't have an answer to...) If you're interested in reviving your two GA noms, I can have a look at them for you in the next couple of days. From a very quick glance I think Sarah Zettel would probably not pass GA the first time, it looks like it needs some more detail in the Career section for example. While William Brooks Close probably would pass with some prose tweaks etc. Cheers, and I hope this reply is of some use to you. Long story short, lots of people have the same issues, and there are some fundamental problems with reviewer numbers, but there are also ways to get around those.  — Amakuru (talk) 09:04, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
@SL93: if there are any DYK noms or GANs you'd like me to take a look at, please don't hesitate to drop me a note, I'm more than happy to take a look at most things. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 09:26, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
@Amakuru: I will think about taking you up on your offer to look at the William Brooks Close article. I do think that the Sarah Zettel article can't be improved much with the sources that I could find. It's a shame because I found out about Zettel due to buying the Analog issue (for 50 cents) that her first short story is in (which just so happened to be mentioned in the DYK hook). Another issue that I thought of about my GA nominations taking a long time to be reviewed is when I use library books to expand the articles - I can't look back at them if reviewers have questions after returning them. I plan on leaving the WikiCup though with apologies to Cwmhiraeth. I'm glad that I didn't submit this before looking back at the talk page - thanks for the offer, @The Rambling Man:. I appreciate it. SL93 (talk) 09:29, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
@SL93: on the library book question, would it be possible for you to take photos of the pages on your phone before returning the book? Obviously there are copyright implications, but if it's just for personal use for you to refer back to them, and those images are never passed to any other person, then it's hard to see what harm is being done and it saves you having to trek back to the library to get the book again...  — Amakuru (talk) 09:51, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
I'm no expert but I think personal use like this is legal (in almost all countries), even if you take photos of the whole library. However, the issue could be that SL93 doesn't know which pages they'll need again in advance, and you don't actually want to get every page of the book or it's too time- and data-consuming. — Bilorv (talk) 10:12, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
@SL93: Thank you for explaining the situation, and thank you Amakuru and The Rambling Man for your offers of help. SL93, you have been doing well in the WikiCup, and I hope you have been enjoying it. I won't withdraw your name for a couple of days in case you have a change of heart. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:59, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
Thanks for all of your work so far, SL93. The way I see it is that the WikiCup is not a competition, but a way we can mutually help ourselves get a boost in motivation in doing the things that we feel proud of and that benefit our readers. There are lots of workflow styles that don't suit the WikiCup and lots of expertises you could have in ways that won't get you many points. If the WikiCup doesn't help you do your work here then you don't need it—cut out the middleman and find yourself a new game or rewards system, if you even need one. Don't waste your time doing reviews that don't make you happy, putting content through a process you don't enjoy, or writing stuff that's just for the cup. The work you've submitted for it this year has been great, and is very appreciated (I've just read through a couple and learned something interesting from each of them), but it needs to feel satisfying by your standards, not someone else's. — Bilorv (talk) 10:12, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
I will stay in the WikiCup. As for the library books issue, my current phone takes such bad pictures that text cannot be read clearly. I can scan them to my desktop, but that takes a lot of time and effort. SL93 (talk) 10:21, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
It's worth noting that working from book sources is significantly harder than working with internet based sources, so I salute you for this. I too would recommend a camera solution, as it is what I do. There are software that can convert clear images to text, which has helped me in the past, but these have to be super high quality images. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 10:32, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
(edit conflict)Following from the discussion on my talk page, I fear I was a little too blunt. The Wikicup is not a competition for everyone to try to win (although some of us do attempt to do this), it is a motivator (as Bilorv says) to create content, GAs, DYKs, FAs etc. I do feel it is a lot harder to get GA article reviews done without being a reviewer (rightly or wrongly), which is why doing reviews may get them done quicker. That system closes a disparity in there being a backlog, but obviously does mean some articles (specifically certain subjects) are harder to find reviewers for. The one way to definately not get a review, is to pull the nomination. Regardless of how long it takes, it will eventually get seen. The arguments about how we should look into GA reviews is a different topic for WT:GAN, but I think the wikicup is a fantastic way to help produce content.
You state that you don't have an English degree, but (I've never discussed this on wiki) I flunked English language at GCSE. I used wikipedia as a whole as a way to boost my confidence in English - don't think you are not good enough. I for one would like to thank you, and anyone who adds content to the project for doing this. We may be harsh on reviews, but that is simply to improve our coverage as a whole. If you would like to learn how to do a review, I'm more than willing to sit down and pass notes/meta reviews or whatever else you'd like. I am also happy to do reviews on request, but I must admit I have found myself a little snowed under of late. I'm also available via email, which is usually a good place if you need a chat about wikipedia. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 10:30, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
Return to the project page "WikiCup".