Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Good articles/GA Cup/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Where we are, end of Round 2

Guys, as of yesterday afternoon, all possible points have been awarded and all pools are up-to-date. I just looked again this morning, and there are few more pending, which I'll look at later today while everyone else is watching football. I'm making a checklist, mostly for myself.

• Dom, would you mind setting up the pools again for Round 3?
• We need to change the main page to reflect the changing in how the rules are worded as per the discussion above, and we need to update the judges list, also as per above. I'll take care of that by the end of the weekend.
• Newsletter: I will compose it and let you know before the end of the weekend so we can publish it by Monday.

Hope everyone is having a nice Thanksgiving! Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 15:16, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

One more thing: I just looked at the Pools again, and saw that currently there's a tie for 2nd place in Pool E. If it holds, what do you guys think of adding another slot to account for it? Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 15:32, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

I'm in the middle of writing the newsletter, and have come up with another question, again about pools. If the above occurs, that means that there will be 16 contestants instead of 15. How should we divide up the pools? The simplest is to make four pools of four contestants each. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 17:29, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

I'm back! Happy Thanksgiving! Anyway, I've completed the Round 3 newsletter here [1]; it needs to go out Sunday the 30th. Please proofread before then, thanks. You'll notice that I wrote it from the perspective of today; if anything changes before it's published, I'll change it. Also notice that I included the four pools with four contestants each; again, if anything changes, I'll change it back to the original. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 20:46, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

What will happen to reviews still in progress? I've got two on the go and I suspect at least one will still be active by the 30th. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 21:58, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

I have a question for myself - I read the newsletter and noticed I have the wildcard. Does that mean I'm going through? Also, I had to update my score myself as NG39 did not update it properly three weeks ago. My score is higher now, hope this is alright? ☠ JAGUAR ☠ 22:47, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

@Ritchie333: Pending reviews will be rolled over to the next round. When we create the submissions page for Round 3, they will be brought over, and then points will be awarded when the reviews are completed.

@Jaguar: thanks for the correction; I went back and looked, and the 66 points are accurate. We look at all the points before a round ends, to make sure all the numbers are accurate, so thanks for taking care of it for us. The newsletter hasn't been published yet, so the results included aren't finalized yet, but will be done before the start of Round 3. It looks, with the corrections made, that you'll go through based on your points alone, so someone else will be the wildcard. Congrats! Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 04:54, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

When will the last scores come in for the round? Four of my completed reviews need to be assessed for points. Snuggums (talk / edits) 06:46, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

All reviews will be assessed before the start of Round 3.--Dom497 (talk) 14:18, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

The wildcard slot is one I'm possibly close to once my last GA review is calculated. What I find a little frustrating are two things. One is the probably unavoidable problem of things like Pool E, where the person with the highest points is tied with my current (not counting the last GAN) point total and the "tie" is between two people with 19 points. I must admit to not having a real solution here, but I must vent a wee bit. The other, which cannot be changed now but might be worth looking at next year, is that a failed GA counts the same as a passed GA. All a person has to do is find inactive editors, put up some comments on their GA and then if no response in a week, fail it. Seems that perhaps a slightly lower point total should be given in such situations (8 points instead of 10, perhaps, as the work done SHOULD be credited) But that's a next year issue. Montanabw^(talk) 18:38, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

@Figureskatingfan: If there's a tie, we should look at the scores for the previous rounds to decide who is going to proceed.  ΤheQ Editor  ^Talk? 18:56, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

@Montanabw: I feel your pain, and I'm sure the other judges do as well. I'm afraid it's the nature of the beast with tournament-style competitions. It's the luck of the draw that you weren't placed in Pool E or any other low-scoring pool. There are some aspects of the scoring that we're going to re-think for next year, and your suggestion should probably be considered, since it's a good one and it makes sense. I haven't seen anyone try to game the system in this way, though; the longer the nomination date, the more likely its nominator has become inactive, since he or she hasn't pushed the article to be reviewed.

Yeah, I know it's the luck of the draw, and once you folks assess points on my last GA I may sneak in as the wildcard anyway. I can live with the chips falling as they may. Montanabw^(talk) 22:15, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

@TheQ Editor: Since we haven't discussed what would happen in the case of a tie, I think that we should pass both. I don't feel good about deciding to eliminate someone who has earned the points to move on at the last minute like this. This is an issue we should discuss and make a decision about before the end of Round 3, though. Both the issues I'm addressing now are examples of what we've been saying all along: that we're really learning and improving as we go. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 21:01, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

I would note that absent a tie-breaking policy put into place prior to the round - or even prior to the competition - best to err on the side of inclusion. (That said, it does grind my gears that both of them have so few points, but I think it's still the most fair to promote both). Montanabw^(talk) 22:15, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

Figureskatingfan, in this edit, one of my reviews was never assessed. Just thought I'd point this out. Snuggums (talk / edits) 23:40, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

@SNUGGUMS: I went ahead and awarded you the points. It didn't make much difference, anyway, since you made it into Round 3 with ease. Congrats, and good luck. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 00:08, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

What counts as a quickfail

The rules say that "quickfails" get no points, no ifs no buts no arguments. Fair enough, but I'm confused as to what a quickfail is. For example, I just failed Talk:Noel Lee (executive)/GA1, however I gave detailed feedback, pointing out specific show stoppers, and encouraged them to do further work on the article outside of a GA review and submit it again when they'd followed my general recommendations. Is that a "quickfail" because I didn't wait for the nominator to respond and I didn't look at the last 1/4 of the article in as much depth as I normally would have? Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 17:27, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

@Ritchie333: Here's the definition of a quickfail, according to the GA Criterion description. I wouldn't categorize your review of this article as a quickfail at all, even before the nominator went ahead and responded, and you'll probably earn a bunch of points for it. You gave some good feedback, and the nominator responded to it and the article was improved as a result. Which is the whole point, right? We rule against quick fails to prevent abuse, which in the opinion of this judge, isn't the case here. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 04:50, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

I was about to ask the same question - I have failed three articles but have not received points for them. On two of them I left extensive comments and closed them as a fail and on one I waited over seven days and closed it due to inactivity. I was also confused about the new rule that was brought in last round, saying that all reviews that pass with no response from the nominator will be discounted, but does that not include fails? ☠ JAGUAR ☠ 15:39, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Personally I would count Jaguar's two reviews that are X's currently; they look like entirely valid reviews to me. A "quickfail" is one where the reasoning is obvious, so one or two sentences suffice. Closing a review as a fail due to significant issues doesn't mean it's a quickfail necessarily. Wizardman 00:14, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Again, as an observer, I think the idea behind this rule is to prevent people from hunting through articles looking for quick points by failing poorly thought out nominations. I think this is a rule made in search of a problem; the kinds of people who would be attracted to this contest wouldn't try to game the system in this manner. And if someone did, they could just be taken aside and talked to about it. To me a review is a review. --NickPenguin_(contribs) 04:30, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Wizardman is right, I think that the rules could be more clearly established. A quick fail by definition is a review that has next to no comments on it and is failed automatically. Now I am always on edge on leaving a review open for at least seven days before failing it. I asked what a definition of a quick fail was on the GA cup not long ago, and Dom497 replied that my review was not a quick fail. I feel like it's a let down that I have made two legitimate reviews and they have been given no points. I now have one pending review with a blocked nominator and have to wait another six days just to legitimately fail it! I think it's wrong and if I'm wrong, I still think that the rules need to be clarified. ☠ JAGUAR ☠ 19:46, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

I agree with you guys that the rules regarding quickfails need to be clearer; it's something we'll work on, for sure. Nick, you should know that this was exactly the reason the rule was created. Early in this compeition, in Round 1, someone was doing just as you describe, which made the competition inherently unfair. Thus far, we've strict in enforcing the rules. I've tried to award points for reviews in which the nominator has disappeared because I think that it's a good service to remove those articles from the queue, but I've been strict if the reviewer doesn't wait the mandatory 7 days. Jag, both articles I removed (rewarded 0 points) were in that category. Now, I have no problem if another judge disagrees and awards you those points, but I believe that I've been generous with your submissions. You're far ahead in points, and I suspect that not only will you move forward, but you'll come in first compared to everyone else. That's to be commended, since you and most competitors are making a difference. That being said, I'll probably not be as strict from this point onward, since the current competitors have proven that they're not gaming the system. Of course, if anyone starts... ;) Well, anyway, I and the other judges are trying to be fair. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 22:27, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Thanks Figureskatingfan for clarifying the quickfail confusion. I have just failed two more articles per an agreement; the nominator has been long blocked for sockpuppetry plus those two articles deserved a straight up fail. I really don't mind losing 80 points, I apologise if I got too carried away as I have been under a lot of pressure to reaffirm my stability in the GA cup (having been passed just by a wildcard last round was not fun)! The purpose of the GA cup is to reduce backlog, improve people's reviewing skills and to have fun. Especially with Jonas Vinther out, I think the competition now is much fairer. Thank you for being generous, as to say I really appreciate it. ☠ JAGUAR ☠ 22:48, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

I appreciate your good faith, Jag, and thanks for your words about the GA Cup's fairness. I also appreciate your enthusiasm, and sincerely hope that you're having fun. Congrats for excelling in this competition! Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 00:11, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

Seeing as how I'm out, if anyone sees something in their search for a GA review that needs a quickfail but doesn't want to waste the time on it, ping me and I'll do it. Montanabw^(talk) 03:46, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

Thinking about next year

A couple thoughts for next year (now that I'm out, oh well, I only lasted about this long in the wikicup too). I do not want in any way to detract from the sincere efforts of everyone involved, but I think some things should be looked at for the next time. You may want to compare to the wikicup to see if they have the same problems, but for future reference:

1. In round 2, I was actually in 10th place by points. The problem is that in two pools (D and E), everyone who advanced had fewer points than me. Also one person each in two other pools (B and C) advanced with fewer points. Now in some respects, this was the luck of the draw (and I'm a big girl who can suck it up), but where you have six of fifteen participants (40% of those who advanced) not actually in the top third by points, this could be a problem.
2. I also suggest in the future (too late now, probably) you mix up the pools for round three a little more. You kept a lot of the same competitors together, hence raising the risk that low-scoring competitors will again advance over much higher scoring competitors.
3. You may want to consider something to the effect that no one can do more than, say, two articles per round that are GAN nominated by the same editor. We all grabbed at the low-hanging fruit of the The Boat Race articles, but I could not help but notice that one of the competitors (Good888) did nine of them for round 2! (and three more already this round) It was fair and square, and may not be repeated in the future, but these are easy reviews as the editor who creates them has them almost GA-ready at time of nomination and also acts upon suggestions quickly.
4. Wish there was some way I could have gotten more bonus points for the review from hell that the Stoor Worm GAN was thanks to that one annoying troll who wanted to derail a perfectly good nom. I might not have gotten more GAs done without it, but it sure was a time sink. Sigh...

All for now, good luck to all remaining participants! Montanabw^(talk) 20:05, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

As an observer, I really don't get the whole idea behind the pools anyways. What is the purpose of this, other than to group people together randomly for some purpose? Is the idea that it will spur activity because you don't have to be the best, you just have to be slightly better than a small group of peers? --NickPenguin_(contribs) 20:39, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

I wish you could have gotten more points for that review, too, or at least gotten a mention in the newsletter.

With suggestion three, following through on that could get problematic. As a medieval history major, I gravitated to medieval and early modern history articles. However, most of those articles were nominated by the same four or five editors. Reviewers are encouraged to focus on their areas of expertise, which in my case is music (because that's where I got started here on the Wiki), medieval history, and archaeology (mainly historic buildings/museums here on the Wiki, which again are mostly from a single editor). So limiting the amount of GAs that you can do per nominating editor could force reviewers into areas that they are not comfortable with.--¿3family6 _contribs 20:46, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

I know squat about rowing; that didn't stop me from reviewing a couple of Boat Race articles (heh, heh). Actually, I PREFER to review GANs a bit out of my normal range of knowledge both because I can bring an outside/ordinary reader perspective to the article (I did a baseball player once and a football player another time, I've also done GANs on a pocket calculator and a Celtic myth). I see your concern, but would you agree that the Boat Race series is a special situation? ;-) Montanabw^(talk) 17:39, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for your suggestions and feedback. We're really learning as we go along, so any ideas participants have is helpful and will help us improve the GA Cup for all. I'm wondering if the problem with the higher scorers not advancing could be due to the fact that we had so few actual participants. I wonder if this artifact doesn't occur when there are more contestants. We might want to look at a single group next time, until our numbers increase.

Part of being in a competition like this is figuring out strategy. Contestants in Round 2 figured out that the Boat Race articles were strategically a good choice, and they were rewarded for it. The same thing happens in the Wiki Cup; the FP specialists tend to earn the most points and end up winning. (Remember, there was some controversy about that this year.) The Boat Race articles tend to be smaller and recently nominated, so they usually earn the lowest points, so it's strategic to review lots of them. More experienced editors are more motivated to get their articles passed and tend to nominate articles that are ready and more easily passed. Articles that languish longer in the queue are nominated by less experienced editors and require more work and time. It turned out that for Round 2, those were just as strategic as reviewing lots of Boat Race articles.

To be honest, Montanabw, if you had reviewed just one or two more articles, you probably would've moved forward, especially with your tendency to review older articles. You were also unlucky enough to be in a pool with high scorers, which is frustrating but as I've said before, part of the nature of this kind of competition. (I know, 'cause I went through it as a Wiki Cup competitor.) That being said, we might want to look at not making pools random, although I don't know of a more fair set-up. I think limiting the type of article reviewed per competitor is something else we can look at as well. Maybe we can do a straw pool shortly after we're done with this competition. At any rate, feedback is good because it makes for higher quality, which is what we want with our articles and with our competitions. I'm also glad to hear that people are interested in the GA Cup continuing into the future. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 21:51, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

Oh I agree, I lost out fair and square. If I hadn't had some RL stuff to deal with and gotten caught up in some unrelated wiki-drama I could have done better. But that said, I also got burned in the wikcup my first time not realizing that extra points didn't carry over, so I've now adopted a strategy in theses things of doing just about enough to advance to the next round but not too much more - it's a delicate balance. But I AM curious if the 40% stat of people advancing who aren't even in the top 2/3 is true of the wikicup as well? Montanabw^(talk) 17:39, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

I similarly was disappointed in this competition when the rule change for the first round allowed anyone who did at least one review to proceed, thus rendering all the points I garnered from my reviews, especially those of older articles, useless. I personally prefer the system used by the old Wikify competitions, where it simply is a point tally, with the highest numbers winning.--¿3family6 _contribs 18:29, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

We considered doing a simple tally but it does not make sense to do so in the nature of reviewing GA's; it would then become easy to rubber-stamp articles and we rather avoid that. Also, mentioned on several occasions, the purpose of the GA Cup isn't only to review as many GA's as possible.--Dom497 (talk) 19:50, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Please note that I am, like NickPenguin, just an observer. I thought about signing up, but my main area of strength on here is working to improve articles, not reviewing articles that others have improved. I do sometimes feel guilty that I don't abide by QPQ more often (part of the reason I only have 1 DYK), but reviewing just isn't my strong point. However, I am very interested in statistics and have been following along with the GA Cup, almost as a "fan", if you will.

This is just a suggestion, but if we are going to use pools, I don't think it would be fair to randomize who is placed in each pool. Of course, life as a whole is certainly not fair, but again, this is merely a suggestion for next year. How about setting up only the first pool a random pool, and then looking at each contestant's (editor's) score and dividing the pools based on those scores. For example, let's say there are 16 remaining contestants with 4 pools of 4 contestants each. Perhaps we should place the top scoring individual from the previous round in Pool A, the 2nd highest in B, 3rd in C, and 4th in D. Then the 5th highest goes in A with the 1st, 6th in B with the 2nd, etc., until all the pools have been filled. This, in a way, gives each pool a defined #1 seed, #2 seed, #3 seed and #4 seed. It would keep the three or four strongest competitors out of the same pool, in order to avoid having a pool where 64 points is not enough to move on while, at the same time, having a pool where 34 points is enough.

I hope the GA Cup continues to be a success as I think that this has been an excellent way to reduce the backlog. --Bentvfan54321 (talk) 01:13, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

I like that idea. We see that sort of thing in real sporting events sometimes. Montanabw^(talk) 17:39, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

If anyone wants me to, I can stop reviewing Boat Race articles for the rest of the cup. On a side note, I have a question. I want to review both Bolivia at the 2008 Summer Olympics and Jamaica at the 2008 Summer Olympics but sadly the nominator has since Vanished. What should I do, as I don't want to simply create a review, wait seven days and then fail it? good888 (talk) 09:58, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Good888, there is nothing unfair about reviewing the Boat Race articles so it's totally your call. Regarding the Olympic articles, you could try to find an active user who may be willing to take on the roll of "nominator". Also, thank you everyone for your ideas. They will all be considered for next year! :) --Dom497 (talk) 19:47, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

I agree, you found them fair and square. But it does present a question in the rules, as we all know TRM will get right on it!  ;-) Montanabw^(talk) 03:21, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

I think that enlisting a nominator to assist is a fine idea, but I personally don't see any problem with sincerely reviewing articles nominated by inactive editors, waiting a week, and then failing it. It's completely within the rules. Waiting a week could limit how quickly someone earns points. One of our objectives is to decrease the backlog, and these articles can severely lengthen it if they're never removed from the queue. Plus, you're providing feedback for the next editor who takes on the article. Of course, that's just my opinion, but as a judge, I'm not going to penalize anyone for reviewing these kinds of articles, unless they're quick failed. That includes quick failing an article based just on the nominator's status. And like Dom, I'm liking the feedback, too! Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 23:13, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

For next year, I think that a fail should score less points than a pass. Reducing the backlog and eliminating cruft is a good thing, but it is more work to interact with someone than to comment and then fail due to inactivity. Montanabw^(talk) 03:21, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

I'm not sure there is a good scoring mechanism that will accurately capture the amount of work put in and the results coming out. For example, I think I spent about ten times as long reviewing Thunderbirds (TV series) (passed) compared to Charles Aznavour (failed), yet I think in terms of points they're worth about the same. In general, I don't like failing GAs and always make sure the nominator goes away understanding why. Ideally, a second GA review will turn up some months later. (Yoko Ono took a few goes but got there in the end). Anyway, I like the idea of structuring the pools so that the highest scorers from the previous round are evenly spread out to avoid close competition. As a consolation prize, I wonder if Montanabw would consider being an additional judge to replace NG39 - assessing reviews and calculating points can take time, so it would be beneficial to have an extra pair of hands on board. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 15:02, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

I think that the apparent disparity in points is the nature of this kind of this kind of competition. I know that I'd do terrible in this competition because my GA reviews tend to be thorough and take a long time. But that doesn't meant that those who do a less thorough job have no integrity in the process; it means that they're passing articles based on the GA criteria. Personally, if I was competing, I'd see how far I'd get without changing how I tend to review articles. Again, we intend on using everyone's feedback for future competitions. And if Montanabw wants to replace NG39 as a judge, I can say that she'd be welcome. It looks like all the judges are busy right now, so we're behind in checking points. I know that's why I'm behind, which will change after tomorrow and improve after this week. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 05:19, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

I appreciate the invite, but must decline at the moment, my RL is such that I am on and off wiki at irregular intervals now through Xmas. But I'm flattered to be considered. Thank you! Montanabw^(talk) 07:56, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

I feel pretty guilty about not helping for the next few days, but I found the advancing system problematic too. To prevent that in the future, perhaps we should have more wildcards, or having more people in a pool. That way, it would be less likely there will be a pool full of only lower scoring participants.  ΤheQ Editor  ^Talk? 21:32, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

I think next year will likely have siginificantly more participants, given the success of this year's Cup. Especially considering the relatively short notice between idea and execution. --NickPenguin_(contribs) 03:19, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

I agree, Nick. This was kind of a trial run, and I anticipate that with all the bumps we're smoothed out this time, our next competition will be even more successful. Merry Christmas! Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 18:47, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

Statistics as of 5 January 2014

My apologies for putting this out a little later than requested; I really should have gotten to it on New Year’s Day, but here we are.

As you all know the GA Cup began in October and is still going. The first month we saw a net increase of 201 GAs, November saw a net increase of 169 GAs, and December saw a net increase of 177 GAs.

These totals, while certainly not record-breaking, are an improvement over recent months: May (95), June (149), July (160), August (143), September (112). May was especially bad; it ranks as the 12th lowest month out of 110 since the Good article process began in late 2005.

The numbers for January are already quite promising; through midnight 5 January (UTC time), there has been a net increase of 65 GAs. In other news, the number of total nominations (458) and number of unreviewed nominations (375) have been steadily declining since the GA Cup began on 1 October, although they are higher than would be ideal.

In summary, good work to all those reviewers involved in the GA Cup! While the cup doesn’t reduce the number of total nominations and unreviewed nominations as dramatically as the backlog elimination drives did, nor does it result in spectacular individual month increases in the number of GAs, it seems to have more staying power. I personally believe that its “slow but steady” ethos will result in a greater reduction of the backlog in the long run. AmericanLemming (talk) 01:37, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the stats- very interesting. I agree with you that the "slow and steady" approach may well be more effective than quick bursts. Remember that the first round of the WikiCup has just started up, which will probably lead to more nominations and reviews, too. J Milburn (talk) 09:31, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Yes, thanks so much! This is good news, and means that we've reached our goals in decreasing the queue, at least partially. I suspect that we'll hold another GA Cup later in 2015, when the Wikicup is drawing to a close (August or September). I'm personally interested in the pink unreviewed box. At the beginning of the competition, those articles were in the queue for six months or more, and now it seems the times are shorter now, like 4-5 months. AL, would that estimate be correct? Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 18:35, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

To answer your question, I've compared the latest version of the Wikipedia:Good article nominations/Report page with the version from 25 September 2014. (As a side note, if you're interested in seeing how many old unreviewed articles there are, I highly recommend the "Exceptions report" that can be found on that page. It lists all nominations that are 30 days or older, regardless of whether they currently under review or not.) The pink box on the Wikipedia:Good article nominations page only lists the five oldest unreviewed articles, while the top of the Report page lists the ten oldest reviews. Sorry about the clunky tables; they're not pretty but I do think they get the point across pretty well. AmericanLemming (talk) 05:21, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

25 September 2014
Article	Days
Geographical name changes in Turkey	204
Caris LeVert	195
The Smeezingtons	195
Communist Party of China	194
New York State Route 287	194
Wizkid	194
Impacted wisdom teeth	189
Neo soul	188
X-Men: The Last Stand	183
Paul Gascoigne	184
Average	191.1

7 January 2014
Article	Days
Korean drama	149
2013-2014 protests in Turkey	143
Daybreaker	133
No Angel (Beyoncé song)	129
2004 Atlantic hurricane season	128
Naomi Canning	126
Rocket (Beyoncé song)	122
Piper Chapman	122
The Blackest Beautiful	120
Mud Creek (Chillisquaque Creek)	117
Average	129.3

As you can see, these two snapshots in time show that the GA Cup has done wonders when it comes to getting the oldest nominations reviewed much sooner thanks to the system whereby you get the most points for reviewing the oldest articles. To put these numbers in perspective, 191.1 days comes out to about 6.31 months, whereas 129.3 days comes out to about 4.25 months. I would assume that the GA Cup has also dramaticallly decreased the average age of all unreviewed nominations, if nothing else by making the outliers (oldest nominations) get reviewed much sooner than they would otherwise (Outliers have a disproportionate effect on the average, pulling it up a lot.) Of course, I don't have any data to substantiate that claim, nor will I anytime soon, because that would be way too much work, but I think the participants may find the numbers in these two tables encouraging. AmericanLemming (talk) 05:21, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

This is great news! Thanks for compiling these stats, AL. I had a feeling this was the case, so it's nice to have the stats to back it up, and that there have been real results and benefits from our efforts. All competitors should be proud of what they've been able to accomplish. They've made a real contribution and made things better here. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 17:33, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Too many Boat Races?

I'm concerned there may be a problem with my submissions in the cup, as I see everyone else is getting reviews checked off except me. I see that "If the judges deem that a competitor is passing articles just for the purpose of racking up points, the review will be removed and the competitor may be disqualified" but I can assure you that I do check the Boat Race articles carefully and only list comments directly relevant to GA. Looking at some of the Boat Race reviews others have done, the key difference is I don't use {{GAList}} or the other templates. I tend to not bother saying "the images are all correctly licensed" or "the citations are all correctly formatted", as I feel that can be implied as and when a review passes since I didn't bring it up.

The Rambling Man is a highly experienced editor with a strong track record of quality content, so one might expect only minor comments at a GA review, plus since some of my comments run across the whole series of articles, and are fixed multiple times, I believe there's less and less to report. I put The Boat Race 1877 to Did you know?, which acts as a good second opinion on the worthiness on GAs, and it passed. Since it ran on the front page, there have been small copyedits, but nothing that I think should have been a showstopper at GA. I'm happy to put more of these to DYK to ensure the quality is upheld. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 12:28, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Ritchie, no worries; the real reason your submissions haven't been checked is because the judges are probably busy. Plus, you have the bad luck of being at the end of the alphabet. ;) I promise to get to them in the next day or two. Re: the Boat Race articles: as a judge, I've been passing them for the reasons you mention. As we've discussed earlier, these articles have been strategic in this competition, and no one has been docked for using them. BTW, perhaps you know that I'm also a judge in the Wikicup; the competitors over there are using Boat Race articles, too. GA reviews are only worth 4 points in the Wikicup, but they're eligible to use. To be honest, when I saw that was happening, I laughed because they're following me around the project! ;) Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 17:43, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

I think both contests have been a boon to this project by The Rambling Man.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 18:54, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

I've only reviewed one Boat Race in this round *hides in closet*... ☯ JAGUAR ☯ 18:58, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

I've only reviewed one Boat Race article, period.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 21:15, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

While I'm glad it's just my paranoia-meter tripping off, I have started to get concerned I've done so many Boat Race GAs recently, that my effectiveness of reviewing them may not be as good as the first few I did, as I recognise the format and zoom in on obvious things I am looking for. I really ought to have spotted the article saying the same thing twice saying the same thing twice if I'm honest. So it might be worth other people giving them a go for a bit, while I do something else. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 20:01, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

I'm not sure if I should feel proud or dirty right now. In any case, I certainly don't want any free passes for my articles to be promoted, the last FA I had promoted took around 2.5 months, so I'm patient. But thanks to Ritchie, 3family6, Jaguar and many other editors, we've managed to create, enhance and promote nearly 100 articles from scratch in less than a year. This is something we should justifiably proud of. You guys don't need to be reminded that this project is about creating encyclopaedic content rather than creating chat groups or trying to replicate Facebook. Collaborations that result in the promotion of good or excellent quality articles are things we should be proud of, unlike the various chat forums and drama boards which drag the place into the gutter. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:17, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

You should be very proud, that's a huge accomplishment! I agree; if there's to be a social aspect to Wikipedia, it should be in service of recruiting and retaining editors, increasing our diversity both in editors and content, and improving and creating new content. As a founding judge of the GA Cup, I will do my best, within my power, to prevent the kind of silliness that's been happening over at the Wikicup the past few weeks from happening here. I think we've done our best to cut the drama here thus far. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 21:32, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Agreed, the GA Cup is a nice family affair compared to the malarky associated with the WIkiCup. Keep up the good work. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:37, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, and we'll work hard to keep it so. The smaller we are, the easier it will be. They've always had contention and drama, though, so perhaps we'll be spared because we've started out well. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 00:35, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Couldn't agree more, although I can't help thinking Christine's above comment could apply to Wikipedia in 2001 (the "they" at that point referring to Usenet). Most of my knowledge about the Wikicup has been people using it as a device to complain about slapdash reviewing and questionable article quality, I'm afraid. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 10:06, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Drama does arrive with size, but drama also arrives with particular people. Ritchie, people certainly have pointed the finger at the WikiCup to blame for poor reviews (and whatever other problems exist in the world...), but much of this (though not all) has been unreasonable and unfounded. Previous backlog elimination drives have also had the finger pointed at them for similar reasons. Sadly, all this competition needs is one person to take offense or a couple of people to engage in some low-quality reviewing and all the same stuff will arrive. I love these kinds of projects, but I worry about the way the "community" works. The projects aren't the problem; people are. J Milburn (talk) 11:05, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Comments for future cups

I was eliminated from the cup after round 3, and have finally gotten around to writing some (hopefully) constructive feedback for any future competitions.

1. More points for review comprehensiveness and article size
   It takes a lot longer to review a big article than a short one — it's good that any points at all were given based on the size of the article and review, but I don't think enough were/are given. For review comprehensiveness in particular, I think points should be given at smaller character numbers: from what I can tell, only one review so far has scored the full 5 points, no-one has scored 3 points and only two reviews have scored 2 points. The points being given out aren't big enough to affect anything; while a nice token gesture, I think either a point or two should be given out for slightly smaller reviews, or points shouldn't be given at all.
   Additionally, review comprehensiveness points being more obtainable might be a deterrent from rushing through and promoting/failing articles quickly, although I don't think there's been much of a problem with that in this competition. And while it's great that lots of Boat Race articles got reviewed, I think it might be a good thing to have a few more bigger articles reviewed.
2. The nomination date points are too much or start too early
   On a similar vein, I think the number of points for date of nomination are a bit too high. I understand the competition was started to help with the backlog, but a month in the queue (at least when the competition started) was not very long at all to wait. Maybe the points should start at two months in the queue, or maybe they could be decreased slightly.
3. Maybe GA reassessments could count for something in the future
   We don't want to be demoting too many articles any more than promoting too many, but I'm sure there are lots of GAs out there that don't really meet the criteria. Making sure all GAs being promoted deserve the title is important, but some GAs from past years either weren't reviewed fully enough at the time or have deteriorated since. I'm sure there are other, less competitive things WP:WPGA could do to uphold quality instead — perhaps people pledging to add X GAs to their watchlist or picking Y at random and reviewing them. — Bilorv_(talk)^(c)(e) 19:08, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

@Bilorv: Thanks for your feedback! I actually created a feedback form last week that addresses much of what you said. The form will be sent out soon and you'll be able to leave your opinion on many other things we are considering for next year.--Dom497 (talk) 16:23, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

Where did I disappear to?

Just in case anyone's wondering why I disappeared from the GA Cup .... firstly, I had a complaint about a GA review. It was quickly resolved, but I had always gone in with the intention that I would drop out if I saw any evidence of quality dipping, which I considered that to be the case. The more mundane reason is I'd just got burned out with GA reviews and wanted to go back to actually writing them again! Having said that, let me be the first to say a big well done to everybody who took part in the cup and helping reduce the backlog. I'll start to pick up the slack of GA reviews soon, hopefully. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 15:44, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Ritchie333 - I too was burned out. That's actually why I came in 5th last round, and barely got a lead over you in the final.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 17:06, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, guys. Wow, I can understand why you were burnt out, but please know that your efforts (and all contestants') made a huge difference. We'll take a break for a while, let everyone recover, and do it again! ;) Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 23:38, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

@Ritchie333: "...firstly, I had a complaint about a GA review. It was quickly resolved, but I had always gone in with the intention that I would drop out if I saw any evidence of quality dipping, which I considered that to be the case." - This is the first time that I'm hearing this. Can you please explain what happened?--Dom497 (talk) 14:21, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

@Dom497: - it's documented in User_talk:Ritchie333/Archive_19#Josh_Walker_GA, but it's not a major deal, the decision to step back was mine just based on a personal high level of quality I have. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 15:35, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

Awards?

G'day guys, did you actually hand out awards for the last Cup? My brain cells must be struggling... Cheers, Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 08:53, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

@Peacemaker67: We did. The reason why you didn't get an award was because you withdrew. However, looking back on the documentation we had for the last GA Cup, this was an unwritten rule. So....I'm on my phone right now, but I will give you the award for Round 3 (since you withdrew in Round 4) when I get a chance.--Dom497 (talk) 10:43, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

So, if something changes in a six-month period, and you withdraw, you receive no credit for the work you did? Seems like a strange rule. Please don't bother. Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 10:52, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

@Peacemaker67: To be completely honest, it's something that the judges never discussed. It was more of a stupid assumption by me. So really, you should be getting the award but if you don't want it, I have no control over that.--Dom497 (talk) 11:50, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

Doesn't seem worth it if you have to ask for it. So, no thanks. Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 23:00, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

Early submissions before July 1

This caught my eye at the submissions Wikipedia:WikiProject Good articles/GA Cup/Submissions#Calvin999: Aren't we suppose to begin at 1 July? How come reviews are already submitted by this editor? -Ugog Nizdast (talk) 06:02, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

@Ugog Nizdast: Thanks for bringing this up, I have notified the editor.--Dom497 (talk) 11:26, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

Potential for drop in standards

I don't want to start a witch-hunt here about any particular contributor but bearing in mind the section immediately preceding this, whoever is running this competition might benefit in a general sense from reading comments at User_talk:Drmies#GA_Cup_and_standards. - Sitush (talk) 21:28, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

The judges reserve the right to withhold points if we feel reviews are either being passed too quickly to gain points or GA reviews are below expected standards. At a first glance, Babur should have not been passed - it took me less than two seconds to spot two "clarification needed" tags in the lead! The GA Cup hasn't started yet, but the rules have been significantly tightened since the last Cup. I wouldn't worry about this too much, if this happens frequently with the same user then action will be taken. JAGUAR  21:39, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

OK, thanks. In fairness, I was the person who added those tags, and if you check the history and the article talk page then you will see many other issues that have been spotted in the few hours since the nomination was accepted. - Sitush (talk) 21:44, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

Tag Teaming?

I was wondering if tag teaming should be banned in this competition. For those who don't understand, this is what I mean:

I nominate an article for Good Article status. Another user who is also in the GA Cup reviews it and passes it. In the same round, that same user nominates another article for good article status. I review it and pass it, meaning that both of us have helped promote an article to GA status and earned at least ten points in that round.

Pretty controversial huh? And it would be more so if me and that user were in the same pool that round... Should it be banned? Good888 (talk) 08:43, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

This is already banned, above and beyond the GA Cup. Going into a review with the intention of passing it because you owe the nominator a favour undermines the whole idea of reviewing. Of course, taking on a review because you feel you owe someone a favour (such as because they reviewed one of your articles) but completing the review honestly and impartially seems perfectly reasonable. As long as appropriate articles are being nominated and reviews are being completed impartially and with an eye to the guidelines, I'm not sure it matters too much how people are choosing which articles they review. Josh Milburn (talk) 09:36, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

I think the idea of the GA Cup is to fix/help with the backlog, which suggests to me that we should be reviewing older nominations — hence the extra points. But we shouldn't prevent users from getting credit if the most recent nominated article is the one they are most knowledgeable about / most comfortable reviewing. So if your friend in the same pool as you nominates an article for GA status and you want to review it, because you're both big fans of the subject matter, go ahead (as long as the review is fair and not overly generous). — Bilorv_(talk)^(c)(e) 09:49, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

Scoring

The "scoring" subpage says that nominating an article for GAR doesn't give points, though leaving comments on an individual or community reassessment does. Would this mean I get no points at all for reviewing a reassessment I initiate? If so, why not?? Its current phrasing isn't entirely clear, particularly for individual reassessments. Snuggums (talk / edits) 23:02, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

@SNUGGUMS: Yup, youn't get points for any reviews you initiate, community review or individual. This is solely to prevent people nominating articles just for the sack of racking up points.--Dom497 (talk) 00:14, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Understood. Snuggums (talk / edits) 01:49, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Answer me honestly!

Am I discouraged from participating in this years GA-Cup? Jonas Vinther • (Click here to collect your price!) 23:47, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

@Jonas Vinther: Absolutely not. By all means, participate if you wish. :) --Dom497 (talk) 00:20, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

SWEET! The minute the cup begins on 1 July, I plan to review articles from 2 o'clock to 9 in the morning, sleep four hours until 12 o'clock midday, and then finally review articles for another 12 hours straight! Should give me a relatively safe head start. Jonas Vinther • (Click here to collect your price!) 00:24, 30 June 2015 (UTC)