# Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Good articles/GA Cup/Archive 1

Active discussions
 Archive 1 Archive 2

## I'm dumb!

I'm sorry, I don't quite understand what this is! I mean I know it's a championship, but how do you participate and what is the goal? Jonas Vinther (speak to me!) 01:14, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

To participate, click on the "Sign-Up" tab and follow the instructions. In terms of the goal, the goal is to decrease the GAN backlog. As of right now we plan on having six rounds. In the first round, everyone "verses" each other. The people with the highest amount of points at the end of the round will move on to Round 2 (for more info on how the round will work, see the Main GA Cup page). As the rounds continue, there will be less and less participants until we crown a winner! The way to earn points is described in the "Scoring" tab. If you have any other questions, feel free to let me know!--Dom497 (talk) 01:44, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

## Glory?

Other than recognition, do we earn other shiny things if we win? Montanabw(talk) 05:47, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

Shiny things? Barnstars, my friend! Also, the satisfaction of knowing that you've made a difference in deceasing the long backlog at GAN. Oh, and fun. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 06:04, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
Those are shiny. Fun is good. ;-) Montanabw(talk) 00:16, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

## Congratulations!

I am from Spanish Wikipedia, and we congratulate you for creating this event. There in ESWIKI already existed a very similar event called Día del loco reto de SAB (The Crazy GA Challenge Day, at es:WP:SANSAB) organized since 2010. --Zerabat (talk) 14:50, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

## Great idea

I think this is a great idea, there is nothing better than competition to spur action, but I have some questions. Are there more than 128 individuals that would be interested in doing a GAR? Do you intend to be contacting all editors who have completed GAR in the last year, or several years? What is you intended method to promote project awareness and participation? --NickPenguin(contribs) 23:19, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

Nick, round one is open to everyone who signs up; round two will be limited to 128, which was chosen because with six rounds, that's how the math works out. Re: promotion: we've created a newsletter, which was published and sent to members of the GA WikiProject, participants, and as a mass mailing. There will be an article about the GA Cup in the Sept. 24 edition of the Signpost. And finally, we're hoping for the most effective promotion of all: word of mouth. Thanks for your questions, and hope I've answered them satisfactorily. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 23:39, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
Adding on to what Figureskatingfan said, we also have banners on most of the WP: GA related pages, and I am currently working on getting a notification up on everyone's watchlist (similar to the Stub Contest). Will you be participating?--Dom497 (talk) 01:26, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
I've created a template for an alternate banner that could be used atop userpages. Looking forward to the event! — MusikAnimal talk 04:35, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
I too twoth that this is a swell idea. Good on whomever came up with it! Bravo, whomever that is. Tharthandorf Aquanashi (talk) 01:17, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

## What if the number of people is too low?

Will the number of rounds be reduced, or will there be several boring rounds where noone can fail? 09:02, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

The judges have discussed that and we came to the view that the rounds will reduce in number if we do get enough participants. As noted on the main GA Cup page, the dates and numbers are just placeholders. - NickGibson3900 Talk 09:07, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

## I'm dumb ... again!

Could someone please tell me what exactly do what when the cup starts? Do you review as many articles as you can and the winner is whoever reviews the most, or do you do one review as best and intensely as you can? I don't quite understand that. Also, the cup starts on 1 October. Is this American time or European time? Jonas Vinther (speak to me!) 14:06, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

All your questions will be answered in a newsletter being sent out tomorrow. I am currently putting the final touches on it. Regarding the time, we will follow UTC.--Dom497 (talk) 14:49, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
Yes, the newsletter will answer the questions in a day. But just in case you want to know the answer faster, here it is. You have to get as much points as you can to get to proceed to the next round. Each review is worth 10 points and you can earn bonus points for the size of the article and the nomination day as explained here. And this is UTC time. Cheers,  ΤheQ Editor  Talk? 22:00, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
TheQ Editor, I appreciate you taking the time to explain this. Just so I get it one hundred percent, it is about reviewing as many articles as possible, and you can then get extra/bonus points for the size of the articles? Jonas Vinther (speak to me!) 22:39, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
Clarify - The point of the GA cup is to reduced the backlog at WP:GAN. We came up with the extra points thing to encourage participants to review older nominations and write better articles. You can decide, you can review a few old nominations thoroughly so people would not be waiting a long time for their nominations or you can review plenty nominations and reduce the general backlog.  ΤheQ Editor  Talk? 00:00, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
Here is a snippit of the newsletter that answers your question: "The competition is not entirely about who can review the most nominations. Per the "Scoring" page, there is different criteria in which you can earn more points. Theoretically, you could review 10 nominations and have 80 points but another user could have reviewed 5 nominations and have 100 points. Yes, we want you to review as many nominations as you can as this will greatly increase the number of points you earn, but you must also keep in mind that every single review will be looked over by a judge. If we find that you are "rubber-stamping" (in other words, the review is not complete but you still passed/failed the article) you may be disqualified without warning." In the end, its a competition and you want to win. So if you decide to review less nominations that are worth more points, there is nothing wrong with that.--Dom497 (talk) 00:38, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

## Very useable newsletter ... two last questions though :)

I assume that every single GA-review a participant conduct after the opening of Round one on 1 October will count, right? Also, just in case you are an unemployed teenage, who also happen to be a high school-dropout, who have infinite time on his hands which results in scoring a billion points in Round one, will those points only count in Round one, and your point-counter will reset when Round two begins? Jonas Vinther (speak to me!) 01:12, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

Yes that's right; unemployed teens have an advantage. ;) And yes, you're right that all points will reset at the beginning of Round 2. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 03:36, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
Christine (Figureskatingfan) Will participants be able to see the overall score for all editors participating, in case the future winner can see after two days, "Okay, I have without question already won"? Jonas Vinther (speak to me!) 13:54, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
User:Jonas Vinther, see here for the pools [1], which will list competitors' points as they earn them, making transparency possible. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 14:28, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

## Getting started

When the cup starts, I should just begin reviewing articles as if there was no cup, right? I don't have to start a review some kind of special way? Jonas Vinther (speak to me!) 18:32, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

Yup, just start the review as your normally would!--Dom497 (talk) 19:05, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
Awesome. Thanks to everyone who's taking time to answer my enquiries I appreciate it. Cant wait for this contest. :) Jonas Vinther (speak to me!) 20:13, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

## Judging

Can I be a judge?Mirror Freak My Guestbook 15:52, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

At this time, we do not need any more judges. You can still participate by joining the competition though!--Dom497 (talk) 19:51, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

## One last question before we start!

When the cup starts will the lead reviewer with the most points be at the top of the pool page or will the order still be arranged alphabetically? Jonas Vinther (speak to me!) 15:42, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

The pool page will always be arranged alphabetically. However, you can click on the arrows at the top of the "Points" column to arrange the names from lowest to highest or highest to lowest based off points.--Dom497 (talk) 19:52, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Regarding first two note from the "Nomination date" subsection on the "Scoring" page: I started with Talk:New_York_State_Route_287_(1970s)/GA1 which was in the the list of the 10 oldest nominations when I started and it was in the queue for more than 120 days. I have two questions: 1. Is that list of 10 oldest nomination itself a dynamic queue (appears so), then how do you verify that an article was there or not? If I complete the review (may be in a week or so) will such an article be equal to 28 points? Thank you. --AmritasyaPutraT 10:33, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

Hi, the judges will take a look at the history of the Report page. The judges will look at what date you started the review, go to a similar time-stamp from the Report page's history and see what were the 10 oldest nominations at the time. Regarding the points, 18 points plus article and review length bonuses.--Dom497 (talk) 11:23, 2 October 2014 (UTC)
@Dom497: Not quite with the points. For article queue wait time we include the base ten so therefore it is 10 (base points) + 8 (older then 120 days) + 10 (oldest 10) = 28. I think -NickGibson3900 Talk 11:31, 2 October 2014 (UTC)
Whoops...forgot about the base points!--Dom497 (talk) 11:32, 2 October 2014 (UTC)
, @Dom497: thanks. I have few more questions/suggestions about the scoring: 1. I think the intent was to write "assessed" instead of "accessed" on the Scoring page? 2. In Review comprehensiveness subsection: Extra 1 point for reviews between 10, 000 - 19, 999 words. I think that is an inaccurate estimate -- for comparison, this featured article(Fanny Bullock Workman) is only 5k words. Why will any review be ever double this size? 3. In Article size subsection: Extra 5 points for articles at or above 60,000 words. I think that is an inaccurate estimate -- the present 38th longest article on WP (based on bytes) Dome, has only 32k words. --AmritasyaPutraT 12:00, 2 October 2014 (UTC)
Any changes to the scoring system will have to wait until round 2.--Dom497 (talk) 20:08, 2 October 2014 (UTC)
For your information, I have made a revision to the system such that if the article is one of the oldest nominations AND is older than 1 month, you only get 20 points.....too many points would be given for one review. Now, I know your going to question why I said any changes will have to wait till Round 2. I said that because discussion between the judges would have to take place to come up with new margins....the change I made is a fair change (for all participants).--Dom497 (talk) 23:48, 2 October 2014 (UTC)
@Dom497: Indeed that is fair otherwise for the oldest nomination you would always get at least 28 points (to bring out this skewness was my intent from the beginning). I think after the judges discuss "Article size" and "Review comprehensiveness" that can also be updated in real-time in middle of the round 1 because no one can possible get any points under "Review comprehensiveness" and very few will get at most 1 point under "Article size", if the new rule is applied retrospectively (or not applied at all) it will be same(and fair) to all. Thank you. --AmritasyaPutraT 00:15, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

There are 471 out of 551 nominations waiting to be reviewed; that means 80 reviews in progress. Let us try to make things more interesting. Judges have been working on a more creative set of awards, which may not be €2000 prizes, but they will be something different and nice to have. However, in my humble opinion, the community can offer a prize much more valuable to an editor than money.

On the one hand, a topic is presumed to merit an article if it meets the notability guidelines. On the other hand, editors may have interest in not-so-notable topics. This is the proposal: the articles powered by the GA Cup (example). Each participant that qualifies for the second round gets one and it is visible as long as the participant stands in the competition. Those who reach the final round keep their article for one year; the second place, for two years; and the winner, for five years.

Article visibility
Position Round 1 Round 2 Round N Final 1 year 2 years 5 years
Round 1
Round 2
Round N
Final
2nd place
Winner

Years are cumulative: if the winner repeats the feat in the next cup, the article will last ten years in total.

• There is only one for each user.
• It meets the GA Cup notability guideline.
• It is visible in the article namespace; one in 6,139,827 chance to show randomly.

The community can certainly award these powered articles. For the price of eight this year, the backlog will be reduced much further, potentially to zero, and may result in new nominations and good article promotions. These powered articles are not easy to obtain, because qualifying for the second round is necessary. They will be awarded to editors familiar with the good article criteria, so they are likely to become a good reading. 84.127.80.114 (talk) 16:13, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

I don't understand this proposal at all.....also to clarify, the awards for the GA Cup will be barnstars...no money.--Dom497 (talk) 19:10, 3 October 2014 (UTC)
I'm glad it wasn't just me. At any rate, I'm against the proposal, mostly because it's incomprehensible, and well, random. 84, please don't cause any more trouble here; what we're trying to accomplish is too important. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 20:37, 3 October 2014 (UTC)
From what I can gather, I think they are proposing that people who do well in the Cup are entitled to have a temporary Wikipedia article written about them, and the length of which it stays on the main page article space is based on how well they did. For example the winner's article gets to stay for 5 years.
I think this is a terrible idea.--Coin945 (talk) 23:33, 3 October 2014 (UTC)
Yah, you are so right, it's really bad. Winning a WP competition does not make one notable enough for an article to be created about one. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 23:48, 3 October 2014 (UTC)
That's what it is about? That's beyond horrible....--Dom497 (talk) 01:34, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
It's clear, when looking at 84's talk page, that he is what my dear departed mother would call an instigator. He has been blocked many times for edit warring. He has an obvious WP:POV, and now he's come here to the GA Cup to push another one. It's ridiculous and I suggest that we dismiss his proposal. 84, as my mother would also say, "Go away." Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 03:46, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

Okay, the text was a bit long. I will explain whatever is not clear. Regarding me, they also say "appearances are deceiving".

• What am I proposing? A method for backlog zero.
• How? Temporary articles (this has been understood).
• Then about what? About a not-so-notable topic: a webcomic, an artist, a scientist, a YouTube channel...

I will gladly answer more questions. 84.127.80.114 (talk) 06:51, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

This "idea" goes against Wikipedia policy. No matter how much you try, this proposal will never work....its a terrible idea. Stop wasting your time and our time.--Dom497 (talk) 13:02, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

## Reassessments

I've been working on reassessment of Matt Damon and haven't been able to find anything in the rules one way or the other. Are reassessments included in the GA cup?--CaroleHenson (talk) 04:23, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

Just wondering... does no answer mean "no"? Thanks!--CaroleHenson (talk) 17:33, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
Sorry, I meant to answer this earlier today. Unfortunately reassessments do not count. We wanted to keep things simply this year. If the GA Cup is successful, we will consider adding reassessments next year.--Dom497 (talk) 20:48, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
Ok, thanks!--CaroleHenson (talk) 20:49, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

## Communist Party of China

Hey judges and @TIAYN:, I made a mistake with my last review, and I am now re-reviewing Communist Party of China. The nominator renominated it on Talk:Communist Party of China/GA1. Should I/TIAYN remove the "failed GA nominee" template on the talk page or move the present review to Talk:Communist Party of China/GA2? This will be a "2nd review" for the Communist party of China on my submissions page. If this doesn't make any sense, I'll re explain it ;) Brandon (MrWooHoo)Talk to Brandon! 17:34, 4 October 2014 (UTC) @MrWooHOO: I've removed the fail template as you are technically continuing the review.--Dom497 (talk) 20:54, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

## My compliments

Dear all,

I have looked at the procedings so far, and with over 50 reviews being done in the first few days, I consider this project a great succes. I would like to give my compliments to the people working on it, you are really doing a good job. Good luck to all the competitors.

All the best, Taketa (talk) 19:50, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, User:Taketa. And that's with just a little under 50 competitors! We were worried that our numbers would be too low to make a difference, but it looks like our concerns were unfounded. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 04:29, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

## Is this right -- it is my first attempt at GA review.

I read the good article criteria and made these series of edits/observation to kickstart:

2. Messaged the nominator.
3. Messaged the major contributor.
4. Updated my GA Cup/Submissions page.
5. Verified that Article Talk reflects the change.
6. Verified that Good article nominations page reflects the change.
7. Verified that GA_Cup Submissions page reflects the change.

I will take some time and complete the review process and then update the review page, article talk page and my GA Cup/Submissions page. Thank you. --AmritasyaPutraT 03:05, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

I found it good on 7 counts and have passed them, will continue with the remaining 4 points (1a. prose 1b. mos 2b. citations to reliable sources 2c. original research) shortly. It is my first attempt and I would appreciate any corrections/feedback. Thank you. --AmritasyaPutraT 06:32, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
Messaged WikiProject U.S. Roads also about the GA review. Will wait a few days for any feedback there too. --AmritasyaPutraT 06:51, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Your review looks great and very comprehensive!! Some of the things you did are not required but it is even better if you do them. Namely:

• A bot does point 2
• 3 isn't required but it is a good thing
• A bot updates 5 and 6 but it can be good to check

- You did nothing wrong but if you want, you don't have to do everything you did. Cheers NickGibson3900 Talk 07:00, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

I have completed this GA review. Can you review and give feedback? Thank you. --AmritasyaPutraT 13:53, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

## Submissions

The amount of points (according to my submissions page) I have does not match the number on the Pools page. If, this could be fixed that would be great. StudiesWorld (talk) 10:46, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

Updated - NickGibson3900 Talk 10:54, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
I did try to ease the GA Cup maintenance, which would have solved problems like the one mentioned above. For instance, a template that I proposed would have taken care of the total column; it can be seen that the current score row for Jonas Vinther is incorrect. But this effort is deemed completely useless.
More evidence has been presented that this competition is not meant to solve the backlog problem. I made a proposal that would have increased the load on the judges, since many more reviews would happen. First, some judges act like they do not understand the proposal. After the explanation, the proposal is allegedly against policy: the notability guideline, I guess. However, the consensus policy would have allowed such improvement.
Dom497 has spoken; Figureskatingfan seems to have misunderstood the idea. I would like to ask for reflection: we are here to build an encyclopedia. I have proposed specific solutions, but if the problems were not meant to be solved, then my abilities are not needed in this event. 84.127.80.114 (talk) 15:07, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
84.127.80.114, my score row is not incorrect at all! Jonas Vinther (speak to me!) 17:04, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
According to the row, ${\displaystyle 108+5=103}$ . Does Jonas Vinther's calculator agree? 84.127.80.114 (talk) 01:03, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
It is against notability guideline.StudiesWorld (talk) 14:08, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
Your abilities are not needed in this event. The template you created did not work and I do not see why the judges cannot use a calculator if needed. Like I've mentioned before, stop wasting your time. No matter what you say, no one will listen. Also, I do not see how making a not-so-notable article would make the backlog go to zero. There are so many flaws in your idea that it is ridiculous. In other words, you ARE NOT HELPING ANYONE BY ANNOYING US.--Dom497 (talk) 20:47, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
Interesting, a deletion in Template talk:GACup/Row that makes the template unusable. May I ask Dom497 about the purpose of such edit? 84.127.80.114 (talk) 01:42, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
Because such wikitext belongs on the main page not talk. 14:16, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
I would like to thank StudiesWorld for trying to answer; unfortunately, that does not qualify as an answer from Dom497. May I suggest the user to use `~~~~` (four characters) to sign messages?
Also, I would like to congratulate StudiesWorld on the Radish nomination. A well-organized review is most effective, although the reviewer should have allowed the nominator to fix the "focused" criterion before passing the nomination. 84.127.80.114 (talk) 16:24, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
Sorry my hand slipped on that one. That is an interesting point, I passed it through as it was only one section. StudiesWorld (talk) 17:18, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
Even if there is one issue that needs to be fixed, if the issue prevents the article from meeting the GA standard, it should be put on hold. I'll reinforce this in the next newsletter as a reminder for Round 2.--Dom497 (talk) 17:56, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
@Dom497: Sorry I misunderstood. StudiesWorld (talk) 20:10, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

## No points?

I haven't received points for five of my reviews? Jonas Vinther (speak to me!) 16:17, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Don't worry, the judges will get to them eventually. :) --Dom497 (talk) 18:35, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

## What if?

What happens if all GA-nominations are review before the end of the cup? Jonas Vinther (speak to me!) 16:35, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Wow Jonas, you're so ambitious! ;) There are currently over 500 articles waiting to be reviewed, so it's highly unlikely that GA Cup contestants will run out of articles to review. Our efforts will probably decrease the backlog significantly by the time we're finished, though, and much of that is due to your enthusiasm. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 18:24, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
It's an interesting idea. I expect to review some 100 articles each round. Jonas Vinther (speak to me!) 23:18, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
Which would definitely solve our backlog problem. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 23:27, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

## Cup categories

I would not believe it if I were not used to. A reviewer is so good that the user alone could empty the backlog and the user is virtually punished. Jonas Vinther deserves recognition for those many reviews. If having an overwhelming competitor seems unfair, then do as other competitions: categories.

For the next round, set two categories:

1. Unlimited reviews. This is where Jonas Vinther belongs and should be the golden category.
2. Limited reviews. Each user is allowed a maximum of N reviews per round, so they had better choose wisely and make comprehensive reviews. 84.127.80.114 (talk) 18:45, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
Absolutely not. And in no way were we "punishing" Jonas.....that's how you ended up understanding it...the only thing suggested was that his number of reviews might be discouraging other people. Also, didn't I already tell you that your abilities are not needed in this event....you even said you would stop giving feedback here.--Dom497 (talk) 18:53, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
Excuse me, but Jonas is not being punished. Speaking for all the judges, we think he's wonderful that the GA Cup has motivated him to review GAs. However, one could say that he's abusing the current scoring system by not waiting for nominators' responses, so we've decided to change it. As I've said previously, he illuminated a glaring unfair part of the scoring system, which we appreciate. It could also be argued that his reviews have done little to improve the articles he's reviewed, which is the goal of GAN and of the GA Cup in the long run. Personally, I regret his hurt feelings about it, but we need to be fair to all competitors and we need to make sure our goals are realized. Additionally, Jonas can still win the GA Cup, even with the change in the scoring system. It's unfortunate that he seems to care more about winning some competition, which is supposed to be fun, than actually helping other editors improve articles. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 19:03, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
Christine (Figureskatingfan), as I said in the previous discussion, I don't pass articles that need improvements or if I leave suggestions anymore per the new rule. And you don't have to wait for the nominators response if the article meets the GA-criteria. Jonas Vinther (speak to me!) 20:03, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
Jonas, that's true; you don't have to wait until the nominator responds until an article is passed. However, doing that isn't all that helpful, does little to improve the article (which is the basis for the classification system), and goes against the goals of the GA Cup. It's up to the judges to create the Cup's rules and how scoring is done. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 20:43, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
I suppose leaving improvements or suggestions can always improve any article, but because this is competition, I'd say it's very predicable that people would rather go on the next review. After all, improvements or suggestions are made from the reviewer's point of view and does not, necessarily, make the article better. My understanding is that the cup is about reviewing articles and reducing the long backlog, so I don't think people should lift their eyebrows when they see my reviews don't have suggestions. And by the way, I DO leave suggestions ... occasionally! Jonas Vinther (speak to me!) 22:07, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

## Zeriously?

I'm not deliberately trying to be the subject of disputes regarding the GA Cup, but I think I have recently been treated unfairly. A couple of hour ago Dom497 decided to categorize my GA-review of Italian cruiser Umbria as "not properly reviewed" because the article contained two grammar errors I overlooked in my review! My review of Italian cruiser Etruria was also categorized as "not properly review" because it contained four! I feel this an extreme overreaction and almost personal attack! Jonas Vinther (speak to me!) 19:29, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

Since no one cares to reply me I assume that's the judges way of confirming my belief. Thanks for bullshit. Jonas Vinther (speak to me!) 23:21, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
Holy cow man. Calm down. I read your post but I was at work and Mobile Wiki is horrible when it comes to editing. Take a chill pill.
Anyway, in no way was I attacking you. Grammar errors are part of the GA criteria...so if you missed that, that's an issue. Consider this your first warning. I know your going to freak out on me and probably withdraw from the competition, but if I find three more reviews that have issues, consider your self disqualified.--Dom497 (talk) 23:49, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
OK Dom497, I would like to resign from the competition please. Jonas Vinther (speak to me!) 00:03, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
Done.--Dom497 (talk) 00:03, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Sign ups end October 15 or September 15? — MusikAnimal talk 15:40, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

Ahhhhh, dammit.--Dom497 (talk) 15:43, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
Not a big deal, people will figure it out! I was just curious. — MusikAnimal talk 16:52, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
It is a big deal, and why we need copy-editors. I wrote it, though, so I take responsibility for it. Dom, could you please send it out again? Thanks. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 21:07, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
Sent out a correction notification rather than the entire newsletter.--Dom497 (talk) 00:12, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

## Stupid new rule is stupid

Hold on! You MUST leave suggestions for improvements on the review page and wait for the nominator to respond to those suggestions in order for it to accepted as a proper review in the cup? I think all participants can agree this stupid, but whatever, I would just like to confirm one thing: people who has a f***load of un-pointed reviews will still get points for those reviews even though they might not include suggestions because they were reviewed before this new rule, right? Also the new rule says you must leave suggestions, but can you cheat your way out of this and simply make one suggestions or is a specific number of suggestions you must make? Jonas Vinther (speak to me!) 15:18, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

Yes.--Dom497 (talk) 15:19, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
Yes what? Jonas Vinther (speak to me!) 15:32, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
Yes to the question you asked. Also, regarding the cheating, one suggestion is better than none. We also hope you would make more than one comment, in good-faith obviously.--Dom497 (talk) 15:43, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
Of course I will leave as many suggestions I possibly can because I'm an Awesome Wikipedian. And thanks. Jonas Vinther (speak to me!) 15:51, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
Unless you're quick-failing an article or an article is so close to passing that you can fix any minor issues yourself, I would have thought that almost all good reviews would already meet these criteria. The only thing I will say is that sometimes a fail is appropriate without waiting for the nominator to respond, but, nonetheless, it's not a "quickfail"- it's a full review which ends in a fail immediately. Surely that kind of review should still be eligible, even if you're going to hold that quick-fails and rubber-stamp passes are not eligible. J Milburn (talk) 16:04, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
Quickfails are when you don't leave any comments on the review page. If you list every single reason why the article fails, it is no longer a quickfail. Hope this helps.--Dom497 (talk) 16:09, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
If a reviewer makes one suggestion for the sole purpose of following the rules, believe me, it may take a while, but we'll figure it out. And then that reviewer will probably be disqualified for trying to cheat. You must make a good-faith effort to review and help the nominators improve their articles, and if it becomes apparent that a reviewer isn't doing that, he or she will be disqualified. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 21:18, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
While we're talking about fails, I have a quick question for the judges. What would you consider to be a 'quickfail'? My nomination of Language education in Singapore remains with no score... I left comments down in the GAR but I failed it on the same day. Would this be eligible for points? Thanks! Jaguar 13:41, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
That is not a quickfail.--Dom497 (talk) 13:59, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
I see, thanks for clearing that up! Jaguar 14:23, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

## Question

Just curious, if I had completed my most recent three reviews within the first round, any reason those were not counted towards that round when the previous ones were? Snuggums (talk / edits) 19:53, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

First of all, the Round ends in 4 hours...I was just cleaning up the pages for Round 2. Second, I only removed reviews that were already approved. The ones that are still in progress haven't been removed. If you don't complete them in the next 4 hours, you can carry these reviews into Round 2.--Dom497 (talk) 19:58, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

I realized you were cleaning, just not sure why in this my reviews for Shannon Leto, Master of Puppets, and Christopher Columbus were not counted towards round one even though they had been completed within the round. Snuggums (talk / edits) 20:00, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

I left them there because they haven't been approved yet. Since Round 2 doesn't start until Nov 1, a judge will get to them soon.--Dom497 (talk) 20:16, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
Sounds reasonable. On another note, would any nominations I review during the interval between any two rounds count towards anything? Snuggums (talk / edits) 20:30, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
Honestly, I was thinking the same....I was sure we discussed this when we were planning the Cup but can't find anything. However, just to be safe, I would say wait till Nov 1, its only a two day difference.--Dom497 (talk) 20:39, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
Not a problem, only curious. Snuggums (talk / edits) 20:42, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

The most recent edition said that Peacemaker67 finished in second place with 152 points in the first round. However, I actually had more points in Round 1 with 172 points. Therefore, I was actually second place only behind Jaguar. Snuggums (talk / edits) 21:36, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

@SNUGGUMS: I was hoping nobody noticed that. I was marking off your last submissions and forgot to update the newsletter before it came. Sorry. In the next newsletter, we'll probably state our mistake and recognize you for second place in Round Two.  ΤheQ Editor  Talk? 22:33, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
Sounds good to me. Snuggums (talk / edits) 22:56, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

## October 2014 GA statistics

Hello there. I'm AmericanLemming, your friendly GA statistics page maintainer. Anyway, I am pleased to announce that October saw a net increase of 201 GAs, the most since April, when we were still benefitting from the aftereffects of the March 2014 GA backlog drive. However, the drive has so far not seemed to reduce either the total number of outstanding GANs (above 500) or the number of unreviewed GANs (above 400), both of which stand at near-record highs.

This isn't necessarily a cause for concern, as having a large increase in GAs coupled with a large number of open GANs could just mean that more editors are submitting more and more of their articles to this particular venue of peer feedback, which is a good thing. Additionally, having a high-throughput of GANs means that articles get reviewed more quickly, reducing the frustration of potentially having to wait for months and months for somebody to review your article. Anyway, the increased popularity of the GA process and the concomitant shortage of reviewers is arguably a good problem to have, as more editors are improving articles with the GA criteria in mind and more articles are receiving valuable improvements through the GA review process itself. All of this leads to an increase in the overall quality of Wikipedia, which is certainly a good thing for our readership. AmericanLemming (talk) 04:20, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

, thanks for the update. We'd like to include this in our next newsletter, if you don't mind. It's our hope that the GA Cup will do all that you describe. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 06:02, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
You're free to quote me in entirety, if you so wish. The statistic (net increase of 201 GAs) is probably of more interest to most folks, though. AmericanLemming (talk) 05:30, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

## All-China Women's Federation

The nominator is inactive. Therefore, I posted on the WikiProjects listed on the talk page of the article. The funny thing is, I posted on every single WikiProject that the talk page listed (here, here, here, here, and here) yet there has been no response from a single one of these WikiProjects. Could someone be willing to take over the review?

This is what I posted on the Good article talk page, but no one replied. I could do what Wizardman did with this GA review. Even though the nominator hadn't edited since July of 2014, he still took on the review, and failed it. Should I wait for a new nom, or just fail the article? Brandon (MrWooHoo)Talk to Brandon! 03:34, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

I think that how Wizardman handled the review is correct. The nominator has 7 days to respond, and if he/she fails to do so, the reviewer is within his rights to fail it. In the future, that's exactly how you should handle it as well. Hope this helps. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 03:56, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
Thank you for the info. --Brandon (MrWooHoo)Talk to Brandon! 22:48, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

## Pools section

Is this section supposed to say "These pools are final."? I thought Round 2 ended in 3 weeks, or does it mean something else? -- Brandon (MrWooHoo)Talk to Brandon! 00:06, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

I've removed it given that it actually isn't really needed.--Dom497 (talk) 01:56, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

## The rules

I see one of the rules states "Only reviews that have been started after or on the round start date are eligible." This seems strange to me as allowing the nominator to respond to the reviewer's comments and then make alterations to the article takes time. There might be a review started in the last week or two of a round which is unable to be closed by the end of the round. Why should this review not qualify to receive points in any round? Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:27, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

perhaps we should've made it more clear in the rules, but if a nominator doesn't respond in the current round, the review is still eligible to qualify for points in the next. In other words, reviews can roll over to the next round. At least as a judge, that's been my assumption, and I've been awarding points based on that assumption. We should probably be more clear about it, so thanks for bringing it to our attention. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 17:13, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
Thank you for your reply. Perhaps it would be a good idea to rephrase the rule to clarify the position. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 18:01, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

I was also pretty confused by this. As far as I can see, the two rules contradict each other. If "points will be awarded for the round afterwards" when "reviews [are] completed after the end of a round", then it can't be the case that "[o]nly reviews that have been started after or on the round start date are eligible". Perhaps you should instead specify that "Only reviews that have been started after or on the competition start date are eligible"? (Also, what does "move the entry under the next round sub-heading" mean? This is not how the submission pages are formatted, so it should probably be removed.) J Milburn (talk) 22:44, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

• You may only score points in a round for reviews which have been completed in that round.
An exception exists for reviews completed after the end of a round. In these cases, points will be awarded for the round afterwards (if you qualify). If a review isn't completed in the round it begins, you can "roll over" the entry to the next round, if it qualifies. The judges will move the incomplete entries into the next round.
Only reviews that have been started after the competition start date are eligible.
The judges have been moving incomplete entries into the next round, so I changed the wording to reflect that. Please tweak as you feel necessary. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 02:27, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
What's wrong with:
```You may only score points in a round for reviews which have been completed in that round.
```
and, a separate rule:
```Only reviews started during the competition are eligible.
```
This seems to capture everything significant about these rules. J Milburn (talk) 22:53, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
I'm good with J Milburn's version; simpler is always better. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 00:32, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

## Almost empty pool and the wildcard?

Noticed that Pool B has only one active participant. Assuming this holds, I have two questions: 1) Presumably, only one person from that pool can be promoted because no one else submited anything. Therefore, 2) What will happen to the wildcard spots? Will you add one more wildcard so 15 people advance? What will happen if the 15th place happens to be a tie (which, at the moment, it might be and I'm one of them, I think...) Just curious and perhaps noting that the judges may want to mull this scenario over, just in case. (If Pool B remains empty, I strongly recommend allowing 15 people to advance, somehow. Montanabw(talk) 05:36, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

Actually, two out of the three contestants in Pool B are active. One has a review that's pending, so that means that if the nomination moves forward and is passed, he'll earn some points. The other contestant has a submission that needs to be checked, but it looks like he'll earn points. So after tomorrow, when I expect that I'll get caught up with checking points, this question will be moot, sorry. However, if this situation were to ever present itself, my answer would be to eliminate everyone who earned 0 points and open up a wildcard slot. If there's a tie, I would imagine that we'd open up a 16th slot. However, I just looked at the pools again, and currently, you're in the wildcard slot by 15 points. I recommend that you get your pending review completed before the round ends on the 28th--5 more days! ;) Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 07:17, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

## Vanished Judge

Just noticed that NG39 (formally NickGibson3900) has WP:VANISHED from Wikipedia. Should he be removed from the judge list? Pinging Figureskatingfan, TheQ Editor, and Dom497. Snuggums (talk / edits) 07:37, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

I guess he probably should, really, which is a shame as the cup was going well and had motivated me to do far more GA reviews than I've done in some time. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 09:56, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
I noticed this yesterday. It was, indeed, a very sudden disappearance. --Biblioworm 16:17, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
I'm thinking the same thing, guys. I was a little alarmed myself when I saw that Nick had left WP. It was all so sudden, and then was no indication in his edit history as to why he chose to leave. I even put a note on his talk page and asked about his status as a judge, but I've received no response yet, and it's been several days. But yeah, I think you're right; if he's no longer around, we should remove him as a judge. I think, though, that we should wait until the end of Round 2 (Nov. 28, just a few days) to do anything, since it's been our consensus to not make any major changes until the end of a round. We also need consensus from all the remaining judges, I think. Side note: Ritchie, I'm very pleased that the GA Cup has motivated you; that was one of our goals, so thanks. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 16:55, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
Given that his account has been "deleted", I would vote to remove him next round. Oh, and sorry I haven't been around much....after this week I should be back to "normal".--Dom497 (talk) 19:42, 25 November 2014 (UTC)"
Somehow I did not get the ping. It's a shame Nick "vanished". But I'll guess we will have to continue without him.  ΤheQ Editor  Talk? 18:08, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

## Re-opened review

I re-opened Talk:Languages of the Roman Empire/GA1, as an editor responded to the review, and I feel voiced reasonable enough objections that I felt a re-opening was warranted. I had closed the review because no-one had responded. I mention this here because I listed it as closed on my submissions page, and received points for it.--¿3family6 contribs 17:41, 30 November 2014 (UTC)