Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Good articles/GA Cup

Active discussions
Click here to start a new topic!

Finals round...Edit

@3family6: As of this edit are the color-coding of the contestants going on to the Final correct? I thought it was top point-earner from each Pool and then one wild card. Shearonink (talk) 18:16, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

Oh, oops. It does say top 2 remaining for wild-card, but top finalist of remaining pools. I'm not sure what to do now, because I've already finalized things. I haven't heard from the other judges for a while, so I'm not sure what's going on.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 18:26, 2 March 2017 (UTC)
There were 10 editors in Round 3 and with this latest update there will be 8 in the Final... Ok, well I'll keep plowing on. Let me know if anything changes. Shearonink (talk) 18:48, 2 March 2017 (UTC)
Yeah, I thought it looked odd, but I can't undo things at this point.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 20:54, 2 March 2017 (UTC)
The thing to do is fix the error. I'm sure everyone will understand if you do so. To have eight people in the final round makes no sense. BlueMoonset (talk) 07:14, 3 March 2017 (UTC)
Except at least one of the bottom three has already started competing.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 17:35, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

@GA Cup judges: This is absurd. I earned my spot here but now we're just going to let other editors compete because the judges don't choose to follow their own rules. Is this the result of off-wiki coordination or merely incompetence? Chris Troutman (talk) 17:45, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

It's entirely my own mistake.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 18:59, 3 March 2017 (UTC)
I will tell the bottom competitors that I made a mistake. Hopefully I can make amends somehow.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 15:01, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

@GA Cup judges: we're nearly four days into the final round, and the pages affected by that round haven't been updated or set up yet. If you'd like, I'll take care of that, but as some pages have banners on them saying that only the judges should edit those pages, I don't want to do so without permission. Please let me know. Thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 15:54, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

I forgot about the submissions page, so that's now done (correctly, too, which apparently is a big deal for me). Also updated the main-page and the tabs. Is there anything else I missed? I give you permission to update anything that I didn't get. The newsletter needs to go out, too, but I want to contact the other judges for that to happen, and I haven't heard anything from them.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 05:35, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
Thanks, 3family6. I've made a few minor edits here and there, mostly to the countdown infobox, and updated the Statistics page, which had been counting the total number of nominations rather than the total number of unreviewed nominations. BlueMoonset (talk) 03:12, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
@BlueMoonset: @3family6: I've got to say thanks to both BlueMoonset and 3family6 for doing the majority of the work this time around. Apologies for not being around, but school has really gotten to me much more than I expected. MrWooHoo (TC) 04:41, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
It was graduate applications for me. I had one due on the 1st. That, and some loooong shifts at work this week.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 04:55, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

@MrWooHoo:, Jaguar, Figureskatingfan: The newsletter is in my sandbox. If it all looks good, could someone send it, please?--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 05:06, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

Need a ruling from the GA Cup Judges - Talk:Kiss Me Once/GA1Edit

@3family6, Figureskatingfan, Jaguar, and MrWooHoo: I have been working on this GA Review - Talk:Kiss Me Once/GA1 - since March 2nd. The nominator has been somewhat incommunicado but an IP-editor popped in a week ago, did some edits, said they were CaliforniaDreamsFan, were having connection problems but haven't been back. In my opinion the article fails GA Criteria 1A as well as aspects of 2A, but I need to know if I have given this Review enough time to Fail it. I hate to do it but I think the prose issues are simply too pervasive to be corrected in the course of this Review. Shearonink (talk) 16:30, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

It's been 7 days since that IP commented. I think you can safely fail that nomination. Once that editor is back, they can fix the issues and re-nominate.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 19:03, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for weighing in 3family6. Shearonink (talk) 19:12, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

Recent post to WP Talk/GA Cup/Disqualification LogEdit

@GA Cup judges: There is a new post on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Good articles/GA Cup/Disqualification Log concerning my GA Reviews of SounderBruce's Seattle Transport articles. He states that:

"I've found the reviews to be very lacking in actual critique, with superfluous comments under each criterion that seem to "count" as part of this competition. Looking at their other reviews, however, I see longer reviews that are worthy of GAN standards.
I would just like to raise concerns here. I do not think this is deliberate or malicious, but I would like actual, critical feedback on my nominations, as they are done in series and I use comments from previous nominations to improve future ones."

Going through my GA Reviews since I started the GA Cup, these are the Reviews that this editor wrote/nominated and that they are concerned about:

Talk:Roosevelt station (Sound Transit)/GA1
Talk:Northgate Transit Center/GA1
Talk:Roosevelt station (Sound Transit)/GA1
Talk:Lynnwood Transit Center/GA1
Talk:Marshlink Line/GA1
Talk:Columbia City station/GA1
Talk:Angle Lake station/GA1
Talk:Route 41 (King County Metro)/GA1

I am absolutely gobsmacked. I truly enjoyed reading each article and think the prose is top-notch, statements are scrupulously researched, almost every image has had all the proper permissions, the references are all in agreement with each other and are well-done, the articles are broad in their scope, they're neutral and don't have any edit-warring that I could find... I always think that when I come upon one of SounderBruce's articles that they should be held up as examples of what editors should strive for when they submit content to the WP:GA process.
Since SounderBruce has raised this issue the GA Cup will need some sort of ruling as soon as possible (and probably from as many of the Cup Judges as possible) because 1) if these Reviews are thrown-out then the placement of the competitors will be affected and 2)if they are all thrown-out then I should be disqualified from participating in this GA Cup. Shearonink (talk) 00:15, 22 March 2017 (UTC)


Will there be another competition this year? Zwerg Nase (talk) 13:01, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

I understand that the GA Cup has been suspended due to the other judges being unavailable for the foreseeable future. I admittedly have been less active since June and was too busy and lazy to attend to those final rounds. I think we'll have to decide if there's enough interest for another GA Cup. If this is the case I'll be happy to step up and take on the role of an active judge again. That being said, the Women in Red contest runs in November so we couldn't run them concurrently. JAGUAR  13:25, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
Judging by the amount of outstanding nominations we currently have, if we can start one, it might be a good way to trim down the time it takes for a nomination to be reviewed. It would also encourage others (including myself) to review more articles than they already are. --Bcschneider53 (talk) 13:32, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
I think the judges are a key part of this effort. Until that issue is solved, I would recommend waiting. Any contest carries negative gamification spillover which judging helps prevent. Chris Troutman (talk) 14:17, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
Agreed. One of the issues with the most recent GA cup, which was not nearly as successful as prior ones, was the reduced availability of judges, which resulted in less publicity, delayed checking of reviews and finding issues with new reviewers, and problems in the changeover between rounds. We need judges who know what they are doing and can commit to a four month process. BlueMoonset (talk) 21:07, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
I think perhaps we should be open to changing the model of the GA Cup in the future. I've noticed less participation over the years. Active judges are only part of the problem, it seems that exposure and interest are just as important. Would people be interested if the GA Cup was more about promoting GAs themselves as well as reviewing them and reducing backlog? Perhaps we could consolidate those two ideas and implement them in a future GA Cup? Or should we leave content creation for the WikiCup? Would do people think? JAGUAR  22:09, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
As for me, guys, I had to step back from much of my involvement in WP, both as an editor and as a GA Cup judge, because of RL busyness. I regret it because I think that this competition has made a big difference. Much of that busyness has ended now, so I'm better able to commit to another round of competition. I agree that the success of the GA Cup depends upon the commitment of the judges. One of the reasons we have multiple judges is so that one can step up when others are unable, for whatever reason, to devote the time and effort. I don't think that we can do anything to avoid this fact. Remember that the GA Cup has only been around for three years; compare that to the Wikicup, a given in the WP community because it's well-established and much older. It took time for the Wikicup to become established, and we need the same. Until then, we need to promote it well, something I wasn't able to manage as I have in the past, which has included banners and writing articles for the Signpost. I'm able now to devote the time and effort to do that, too; for example, I've always wanted to apply for a grant and offer prizes to our competitors, which I'd like to handle the next time we conduct the GA Cup. I recommend, then, starting it in January. I agree that we shouldn't conflict with the Women In Red contest, and although I know that a January start date would conflict with the Wikicup, we've held the GA Cup concurrently with it in the past because they complement each other well. I also can't commit to anything until after November anyway, since I'm sitting for my clinical exam then. So what do you guys think? Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 05:23, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

@GA Cup judges: Hey everyone - sorry for seeing this like a month later. I'm thinking 2018 and possibly community input before then to possibly change up the structure of the GA Cup: does that sound reasonable? MrWooHoo (TC) 13:15, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

Yes, I think a revamp of the GA Cup is definitely needed to move it forward. JAGUAR  23:31, 24 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Update? I'd definitely favor a revamp, and would help out with judging, if it is so needed. Eddie891 Talk Work 16:19, 17 May 2018 (UTC)
Return to the project page "WikiProject Good articles/GA Cup".