Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Good articles/GA Cup/Archive 3

Active discussions
Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4

Objecting nominator

I did my best to make a good review of a weak yet promising article: Netherlands in the Eurovision Song Contest 2014. It's much improved as a result, but the nominator objected to the thoroughness of my review, even claiming that he was unaware of how to find text on a web page, or what an "easter egg" link was, starting a thread at WT:GAN claiming that I was "wasting [his] time". I have since left the article to someone else to pass, but I just wanted to ask here if this whole sorry saga means the hour or two of review time I put into this [without the slightest hint of thanks from the nominator (worse, just indignation and recalcitrance)] will go without any kind of recognition in the contest? It's not a major issue, I'd just like to know so that I can be sure to avoid this situation and this nominator's articles in the future. Thanks. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:42, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

RM, sorry for your difficulty. While this isn't the place to decide if you were being overly harsh and using the FA criteria, it seems that you've been vindicated at WT:GAN, anyway. It is the place, however, to decide if your review is eligible to be submitted in the GA Cup. I bring your attention to this rule: "If the nominator of the article review requests a second opinion, your review still counts; again, if your review is complete." So go ahead and submit the review, and put a note that the nominator rejected your review and asked for a second opinion. I'm sure it will be accepted for points. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 21:34, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
@Figureskatingfan: Firstly, RM may need to differentiate between nominator and a member of WikiProject Eurovision. Sims2aholic8 is the nominator, not myself, as RM has claimed.
Secondly, I was compliant and asked questions in aspects that I had doubts with, throughout RM's reviews (as can be seen in diff 1 and diff 2). If was the reviewer who openly admitted to only being "more used to working on featured articles and lists, and therefore may tend to have marginally higher standards than those of other GAN reviewers". Therefore giving the impression of using FA criteria on a GA review; to which I questions the ethics being used, but also allowing RM the opportunity to clarify just in case I had misinterpreted their meaning. I even explained to RM that Project Eurovision have specialised templates to simplify pipelinks. The nominator then responded to the reviewer by noting he too had made additional changes.
The Rambling Man then returned with additional changes to be made, whilst also stating he was "not buying this artificial version of bolding in the lead". And I in reply noted in good faith about MOS:BOLDTITLE, in case he may not have been aware of it.
I had replied (perhaps bluntly) but with the aim of showing that I was still uncertain about a GA review being carried it in what felt strongly like FA conditions. I also asked RM about the change to the phrase "let all entries shine", and whereabouts it was located, because I could not find it. I didn't even know at that point that it was possible to search for context using the web search. RM should have assumed good faith that perhaps a user may not be fully aware of how to search for phrases using the CTRL-F function, rather than assuming a user is fully technological-compliant.
Nevertheless, RM carried on with his review, and I assumed good faith in his actions and thought that perhaps there was a miscommunication between he and I. And I had continued to deal with the reviewers recommended changes. I was confused with these replies, which I clarified that confusion in this reply. But rather than be polite and courteous about a clear miscommunication between two users, RM threw in the towel and withdrew from reviewing. So there was no objections from my part as such. However, there was a clear "throwing the rattle out of the cot" behaviour from the reviewer. Wes Mouse | T@lk 22:03, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
And for the record, I never said at WT:GAN that RM was "wasting my time". So why is RM putting words into my mouth? Wes Mouse | T@lk 22:12, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
You're operating on a clear straw man argument here: Rambling Man was not reviewing your article according to the FA criteria, and even if he was I should think that you would be happy to accept any possible improvements to the article. Admittedly, you're not obliged to do anything beyond GA criteria (or anything at all for that matter — we're all volunteers), but RM simply made an offhand comment (that I imagine he strongly regrets making) and you blew it way out of proportion. While I hate to feel like an armchair psychologist, I think you're exhibiting WP:IDHT and refusing to just drop the stick: RM has withdrawn and promised to steer clear of you in the future, and I can't think of anything else you could want to happen. Bilorv(talk)(c)(e) 22:28, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
@The Rambling Man and Wesley Mouse: Why all of this started is not going to change whether RM gets the points or not. This looks to be a simple case of miscommunication blown up. Taking a look at the review Rambling Man, you have followed all the rules of the GA Cup. It's just a matter of the judges checking to make it sure it is complete (as Figureskatingfan mentioned above).--Dom497 (talk) 22:31, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
And another thing, as a reviewer I always review above and beyond the GA-criteria. I like leaving some tips to the nominator on how to improve the article even more (and I've never had an issue doing this). I never imagined seeing someone not want the additional help.--Dom497 (talk) 22:33, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
I don't think any straw man, or even IDHT comes into it here. When RM links my name into a thread like this, and it shows on my notifications; then obviously I am going to see why I have been "name" in a conversation. When I see that he has twisted some things out of context, then it is only duly right I add my side, so that everyone has a clearer insight into the whole affair. And looking at what the second-reviewer has written, even they have unclear certainties into what RM was going on about "bold text" within a lead section, and they also correct RM who said that the term Netherlands' should have a "possessive apostrophe". But then that is down to how the reviews have been conducted, and nothing to do with the GA cup. The only concern that I had during the review was the fact it was done in a way that I had never seen before, other than at a FA review. I had questioned that, and RM confirmed he is only familiar with FA's. So if that was the case, why do a FA review on a GA nomination? Wes Mouse | T@lk 22:38, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
Even if he is only familiar with FAC's people need to start somewhere. GAN's are not something that people know how to do right of the bat. There is a reason why the GAN backlog is so long; because there are not enough reviewers. I know a bunch of people who have gotten discouraged from reviewing GAN's because of reactions from other people. Life isn't perfect. Life is a learning process. Wikipedia is the where near perfect and definitely a learning process in every aspect. Sometimes you just need to take a breath, understand that he may not be totally familiar with GAN's (which apparently he even told you) and deal with it. If you don't agree with something, let him know. Talk it out. Don't go running to other people looking to support you. It looks like you simply took things out of context when all Rambling Man was trying to do was give you some pointers on how to improve the article further.--Dom497 (talk) 22:47, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
@Wesley Mouse:I want to provide something that you can learn from. When RM said that he wasn't liking the bold text, you replied with, "if you are not buying the "bolding" in the lead, then perhaps you need to challenge MOS:BOLDTITLE which encourages and recommends it be done." Then you suddenly replied with this, "Well I'm not buying into the way you are reviewing this, in all honesty". Just by reading this I get the sense that you're talking in a sassy tone. Were you? Probably not. But one thing needs to be known about the internet; the way you are talking does not pass over through the internet. You could have simply said, "I don't really understand how you're reviewing the article. Can you please explain". That's all you had to say and all of this could have been avoided.--Dom497 (talk) 22:53, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
And one more thing. When you said, "You should also assume that not everyone is familiar with conducting a "simple control-F (or cmd-F)", in order to find text. Being more elaborate and helpful is what is expected of a reviewer when carrying out GA's." Again, sassy tone (as I read it over the internet). A GA reviewer is in no way obligated to tell you what a control-F is. If you don't know what is was, google it or ask. It appears that you wanted him to simply tell you how to do it when you could have taken the initiative. GA reviews are not only the reviewer's responsibility. Effort is required on the nominators part. That's all I have to say--Dom497 (talk) 22:59, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

Christine, Bilorv, Dom, thanks for your comments, all very useful. The Rambling Man (talk) 04:37, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

FYI @The Rambling Man: I checked off the review. By the way, you are the first nominator who received points in the "Review comprehensiveness" section. I guess I'll leave some thoughts about this situation as well. Some of the comments said in the review/at WT:Talk were a complete miscommunication and were blown way out of proportion. When I review GA's I look at the GA criteria, give some critiques, then I look and see what could be done for FA (like Dom said above). I'll use an analogy to demonstrate. Some reviewers just want to review off of the GA criteria. Let's just say this is getting a 70 on a test. Other reviewers want this article to get to FA someday/like to look above and beyond. They would be getting 100 and/or extra credit on tests. RM is this type of reviewer. The review would've easily failed if he was actually using the FA criteria. Even though he says he says he is unfamilliar with the GA criteria, I think not. Look at the reviews that have been checked off on his submissions page and you'll see for yourself. I think you need to assume good faith. Cheers! MrWooHoo (talk) 07:21, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
I'm not even sure I said I was unfamiliar with the GA criteria, just that I was more used to FAs and FLCs than GANs, although I have reviewed around 120 GANs, with little complaint (other than this one), and I have written around 162 GAs of my own. Perhaps I don't have a clue after all?! And I am sorry for assuming that people knew that control-F (or cmd-F) can be used to "Find" text, I assume a certain level of competence in these reviews that perhaps I should not. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:26, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
@Dom497: I appreciate when reviewers provide advice on how to improve an article beyond GA status, I'm pretty much sure everyone is. In fact, of all the GAs I've nominated, the reviewer has followed the GA criteria, and after passing it, provided additional information on what can be done next to bring it to A or FA class. But as I said, the way the review itself came across was ignoring the GA criteria, and going straight to FA review. I have been involved with 3 FA noms, and those things have feared now, and are on par with my phobia of spiders and heights. So when I seen this review look like a FA style, then I just got utterly terrified and had a cyber-panic attack. It is noted on my user page babel about my disabilities, the fact I suffer with panic attacks, and Asperger syndrome. I suppose whenever I start to communicate in future, that I should start the opening line with "please be aware I have Asperger's"? So that people know how to conduct themselves around people with such social interactive personae?
@MrWooHoo: I think it is very evident that I was assuming good faith. More so as I was still cleaning ip the article based on RM's recommendations, whilst still asking questions for clarity. Perhaps RM misunderstood the questions for being "pointy" arguments. And if that was the case, then he too could have also sought clarity from myself. As you and Dom have said, it is just a simple case of both RM and myself misunderstanding each other, and that aggravation boiling itself to the top of our personalities and blowing sky-high like an erupting volcano. I was even willing to allow RM to finish off his review, as it was so near to competition anyway. But he just withdrew at the 11th hour. Wes Mouse | T@lk 10:26, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
You got the pass and your attitude has made sure I'll never review your articles again. You didn't once show the slightest hint of appreciation for my efforts, you just dug in and made me wish, deeply, that I had spent my time on other reviews with others who actually thanked me for the more in-depth analysis than a simple tick-in-the-box exercise that you appeared to be looking for. Time to move on now, this whole unpleasant saga has come to an unpleasant conclusion, I think we can all agree on that. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:36, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

Review comprehensiveness measurement

Using the DYK check tool to measure how large an article/review is, as recommended on the Scoring page, does not appear to include bulleted or indented text, both of which are used quite, extensively on my reviews, more so than simple prose. See an example. However, these parts still form part of the review, so I would view it as unfair if the measurement tool does not take these into account. Can somebody confirm whether these are measured in the review comprehensiveness section, or whether the standard article size tool is used, which would be a disadvantage to me. Rcsprinter123 (express) @ 08:42, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

The DYK check tool works for you on GA reviews? I can't use it on that page — it doesn't appear in the tools bar (presumably because it's a talk page). Also, surely there must be some taking account of the other user's responses: if they give detailed essays in response to short queries you made, it's not fair to give you points for that. Bilorv(talk)(c)(e) 09:51, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
Maybe not, but a large chunk of the review proper is still missed out. Rcsprinter123 (rhapsodise) @ 10:20, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
The judges take all that into account. When I check for review length, I cut and paste into Word without charts, bulleted points, etc., and if the character count is close to 1,000, I award points. To clarify, you can use the DYK tool only to check article length, not review length. You need to check review length in other ways, like cut-and-paste or use online conversion tools. Really, guys, it's very rare for a review to be less than 1,000 characters. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 18:40, 9 July 2015 (UTC)


Hi everybody! I just want to ask why I dont appear in the Pools page. Did I something wrong while registering myself? Thanks. --José Galindo (talk) 00:47, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

@José Galindo: I fixed this, sorry. We should've added you before. MrWooHoo (talk) 09:50, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
@MrWooHoo: Thank you.

Submission not checked

9 days ago I added an entry to my Submissions page and it hasn't been reviewed yet. I'm a patient person and normally, I wouldn't mind, but since this is a competition, I'd like to know where I stand: am I fairly safely advancing to the next round, or do I need to squeeze in another review or two? Bilorv(talk)(c)(e) 09:04, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

Sorry. It seems like all the judges or busy. I've been dealing with an uncooperative editor (outside of the competition) for the past few days so that's why I haven't been able to check any reviews. The other judges I don't know about. Sorry about the delay.--Dom497 (talk) 12:53, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
Thank you for checking my entry. Sorry to bother you. Bilorv(talk)(c)(e) 13:28, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
@Bilorv: No worries. I'll be checking more of the reviews now so you can get an idea of where you stand.--Dom497 (talk) 14:08, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

Carrying a review over to Round 2

Dear judges, I finished one of my reviews after Rd. 1 had already ended but before Rd. 2 has started. I guess I can carry the points over to the next round?

Cheers, Zwerg Nase (talk) 08:27, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

Disclaimer: not a judge. The Scoring page says "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)." So I think you can get points in round 2. Bilorv(talk)(c)(e) 10:14, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
Zwerg Nase - User:Bilorv is correct. You will be awarded points in Round 2 for this review.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 14:44, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
Great, thanks! Zwerg Nase (talk) 15:02, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

What do I do for new pools for round 2?

I was just wondering how to demarcate what reviews were for round 1 and what were for round 2, or do I blank the page and start over? Will judges do this for me or is there something I have to do myself? BenLinus1214talk 22:10, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

Ben, the judges will do that for you. We'll keep the articles that you reviewed but have not yet passed, and they'll count in Round 2. Give us a little time; it will be completed as soon after the beginning of the day on Aug. 1 as possible. Congrats for moving on! Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 22:42, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

Suggestion for a rule change about 2nd Opinions

I noticed that competitors don't get points for second opinions, maybe for a good reason I'm not aware of, but I think, next year or in later rounds, points should be awarded for giving second opinions simialr to how they are for reassessment comments. I noticed that a lot of reviews looking for one often get pretty dusty. Maybe if 2 points were given, the GA Cup could not only help with those, but also encourage editors to ask for second opinions since they'll get answered quicker. Thoughts from others? Wugapodes (talk) 04:41, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

Maybe next year, but we won't be making any changes to the scoring system this year.--Dom497 (talk) 13:10, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

Scoring question

I know that commenting on community reassessments is scored--what about individual reassessments? Also, because I have not done a reassessment before, is the nominator of the individual reassessment the same one who does the review? Johanna (aka BenLinus1214)talk to me!see my work 03:54, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

Yes, the nominator of the GAR isn't the nominator. This is what the rules state: "All GARs are worth 2 points. NOTE: This does not include nominating. Only leaving comments/reviewing a GAR counts; so long as it is not a GAR that you nominated (community or individual review). Closing the GAR does not count (but by all means do so once there is a consensus); you must leave an opinion of whether to delist or not. You can only receive a maximum of 2 points no matter how active you are in the reassessment; so long as you leave your opinion with an explanation, you will get the points. Individual and Community reassessments are both worth 2 points." You can find articles to reassess here: Wikipedia:Good article reassessment. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 20:34, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
Wait, the nominator of the GAR isn't the nominator? I assume it was just a typo but I don't understand. The steps outlined show that the nominator is the reviewer. If so, the scoring language also confuses me. Sorry to pester you guys with questions. :) Johanna (aka BenLinus1214)talk to me!see my work 13:11, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
Yes, sorry, I misspoke. I meant to say, "Yes, the reviewer of the GAR isn't the nominator." Grr, I have no excuse for that! ;) Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 19:46, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

9th place?

I feel that the statement that "9th place overall" proceeds to Round 3 is a little misleading. 9th place in Round 2 is Coemgenus, who moved on for winning pool 1 anyway. So I guess you mean the best third placed competitor (Good888)? Also, the result might be a reason to reconsider the idea of pools for the next cup ;) Zwerg Nase (talk) 19:06, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

I think "9th place" is misleading, but I think the pools should stay. Part of it is that it narrows down your competition really fast: instead of competing against 16 people, I'm competeing against 4. And as someone with rapidly diminishing free time, knowing that I don't have to care about how Tomandjerry dominated that round leads to less stress. Wugapodes (talk) 19:34, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
@Wugapodes: Well, looks like we both need to care about his this time round ;) Zwerg Nase (talk) 09:43, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Breaking Benjamin - Pink box, but only 18 points?

@Figureskatingfan:: Breaking Benjamin was on the list of oldest nominations, but was only awarded 18 points. Was there a reason for this?--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 05:10, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

Because I missed it. Thanks for bringing this to my attention; will go correct now. Congrats on moving to the final! Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 15:45, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

Round 3 Pools page

For some reason, Winner 42's entry remains green ("still competing"). The background color will need to be changed to reflect the final result. BlueMoonset (talk) 16:25, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for bringing that up, fixed. JAGUAR  16:43, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

Submissions page

@Figureskatingfan: It appears that you removed one review that was not finished yet - Eurovision Song Contest 2015. Cheers, Zwerg Nase (talk) 07:33, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for catch; added back. My apologies; this was the first time I prepared submissions pages for a new round. Dom has done it up to now, and he's no longer a judge, so I'm learning. I appreciate that you brought it up so politely. Contestants: if you find an error going into the next round, please let us know and we'll fix it ASAP. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 02:56, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
Thank you! :) Zwerg Nase (talk) 09:20, 1 October 2015 (UTC)


Hello all, sorry to report that I must withdraw. Good luck to the other contestants, and congratulations on organising a decent competition which focuses on quality. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:54, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

Done. Sorry to hear that you're withdrawing, The Rambling Man. Hope to see you in the next Cup! JAGUAR  21:48, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

End of tournament?

Hi everyone! I have another question: If I start a review now, but cannot close it before the end of the Cup, because the nominator does not respond quick enough, will I still get points after the tournament is over? How is this handled? Zwerg Nase (talk) 12:03, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, my bad, the answer was in the rules... Zwerg Nase (talk) 12:51, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

Congratulations to all!

I just wanted to say a quick congratulations to all who participated in the GA Cup this year—I think it went well. Particularly, I would like to thank the finalists, User:Zwerg Nase, User:Sturmvogel 66, me, User:Tomandjerry211, and User:The Rambling Man, and our judges of course. :) Johanna (formerly BenLinus1214)talk to me!see my work 02:29, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for your message and thanks to everyone for a great competition! :) Zwerg Nase (talk) 08:25, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
Yes! I think that I can speak for the judges when I say thank you to all the contestants and to all who participated. This competition was a resounding success, which is beyond gratifying for us. Stay tuned for the final results through the weekend. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 17:38, 30 October 2015 (UTC)


Dear judges, considering we are soon entering the decisive week of the Cup, it would be helpful to get an idea of where everybody's at. I can see that two of my fellow contestants are also running well on number of reviews, but since I don't know how many points they scored with them, I cannot really tell where I stand. Maybe you could do another round of checks before the final week starts? Thanks! Zwerg Nase (talk) 20:50, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

Sorry for the delay, I think some of us have been inactive this week. I'm in the process of updating everybody's scores now and should be finished by tomorrow (there is a lot to be done). Rest assured, everything should be up to date shortly. JAGUAR  22:17, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
Thank you! :) Zwerg Nase (talk) 08:09, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
@Jaguar: Something seems to be wrong with the overall points score... Me and Johanna seem to have 2 and 4 points too many respectively, if I'm not mistaken. Zwerg Nase (talk) 11:06, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
Hi Zwerg Nase and I apologize for my lack of checking/updating. I will double check all scores and will update the pools page. MrWooHoo (talk) 01:50, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

Dear 3family6, the article Gun show loophole was on the pink box when I started the review. Zwerg Nase (talk) 21:01, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, I must have missed it. I even checked (or thought I did), and was surprised when I didn't find it.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 21:44, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

Dear judges, please be aware that the point scores as they stand now are incorrect. While my number of reviews is correct at 21 Some checks did not seem to have been worked into the points table, my points score is about 30 points too small. The same applies for Sturmvogel, as far as I can see. Zwerg Nase (talk) 10:12, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

@3family6: You have updated the "Pools" page but the points still do not correspond with the points listed on the "Submissions" page, where I have 408 if I counted correctly. I don't think that it changes anything about the order, but it should probably be double-checked. Cheers, Zwerg Nase (talk) 17:56, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
I'm right in the middle of correcting all of this.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 17:58, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
How do things look now? I think this was all my fault before, but now all the review points should be accurate.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 18:08, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
Looks good, thanks :) Zwerg Nase (talk) 19:18, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

Finals suggestion

Although it's too late for this year, I'd like to suggest that for future GA Cups, the Finals runs the entire length of the month, much like the WikiCup goes to the end of the month when it concludes. While two days are needed to assess and reset between rounds, there is no reset needed after the Finals. Further, since the competition is so intense in the final month, an extra couple of days could see many extra reviews concluded, further reducing the backlog. BlueMoonset (talk) 19:28, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

I think this is an excellent suggestion, and something I've never thought of before. I think that it's definitely something we should consider. Thanks for coming up with it! Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 04:29, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

Proposal for next GA Cup

I returned to Wikipedia after a long absence and caught the competition in the middle. I believe everyone involved in the competition is doing excellent work. I was inspired to write a proposal on some ways to improve the competition to increase participation and to better encourage greater reduction of the GAN backlog. You can see the proposal here; please leave any feedback here or on the talk page. Thanks! Grondemar 06:18, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

@Grondemar: Thanks for the proposal! Though you bring up some good points, I fear that much of the proposal is bringing us back to the structure of the Backlog Drives (when the whole point of setting up the GA Cup at first was to replace the Backlog Drives with a new system)--Dom497 (talk) 15:52, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
I thank you, too. I put a notice on the feedback page to encourage more discussion [1]. Responding to Dom, though, the Backlog Drives were, for the most part, unsuccessful. The GA Cup, even with its current structure, has been mostly successful, and as my mother used to say, why fix it if it's ain't broke? ;) I'm taking a day or two to consider G's proposals, though, and then I'll chime in.Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 18:11, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
I had a thought to increase the length of participation, which Grondemar is aiming for, while keeping the competition rounds structure: have an "eliminated" bracket where all of the people eliminated in the previous round can compete for a new extra (single) space in the next round. For example, say that 30 people are eliminated in Round 1. In Round 2, all 30 go head-to-head with each other, and the top point-getter only gets to re-enter the competition at Round 3. Meanwhile, the 16 people eliminated at the end of Round 2 get to go head-to-head during Round 3, with the top point-getter re-entering at Round 4, and so on. Anyone eliminated in the semi-finals is out of the competition for good; the finals consist of the people who survived the semis plus the one person from the "eliminated" group.
It would be possible to restrict to once only the number of times someone was eligible to compete in the eliminated group, if you wanted to. I'm not sure whether this change would be too complex or too much work, but it's an idea to keep more people around for longer. BlueMoonset (talk) 20:07, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
I proposed exactly this when we were still planning the GA Cup. We opted not to include it but I'm still all for it.--Dom497 (talk) 20:30, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

Stats on the GA Backlog and some recommendations for the cup

Since it seems we're in the planning phases of the next GA cup, I thought I might share a pet project I'm working on that might be of use. I've been doing some analysis of the backlog at GAN and particularly the GA cup and put it at User:Wugapodes/GAStats. So far I've noticed that the GA Cup doesn't seem to lead to reviewer retention which is probably why the backlog comes back so soon after a cup. Perhaps this upcoming GA cup could be designed to incentivize participation after getting knocked out. Maybe a double elimination tournament of some sort, or wider advertisement to get fresh blood into it? Wugapodes (talk) 06:29, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

I won't pretend to understand any of your data analysis that was more complicated than values of r, but it looks to me like your data set was flawed as it only measured the value of (nominations — reviews) across time, and would not reveal anything significant about how many articles were being reviewed if the number of articles being nominated was correlated with reviewing speed. I took part in the first GA cup and remember thinking at the time that although the number of reviews made was drastically increasing, people had started to notice this and starting nominating more articles. I even did it myself: I had a couple of articles that I was holding off nominating for GA because I didn't want to backlog the process any further, but after I saw the number of pending articles go down I went ahead and added them to the list.
You're also assuming that reviewer retention is a key aim of the backlog drive. That's not what I was thinking when I joined the first cup. I was thinking that it would create some motivation for editors already among us, and already aware of the process, who just needed some kind of sense of progress to inspire them to help out a bit. While it's great if anyone keeps up their pace of reviewing after the cups, I wouldn't expect there to be any good solution to the issue that the cup only works in small bursts. Not that I don't think double elimination or any other ideas are worth thinking about. Bilorv(talk)(c)(e) 19:02, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for the input! I'm not going to pretend that this is worthy of a journal publication, like you said there's way more I can be looking at, and the rate nominations were coming in is definitely something I hope to look at later on. I still think this analysis has some merit, but I doubt people here care to read me argue about statistics.
While it may not be the goal of the backlog drives to bring in more reviewers, I believe it is something we should think about. The fact that we can't go more than 4 months without the backlog getting unmanageable is problematic. And if you're right, that people nominate more during the cup, the diminishing returns as the cup goes on coupled with the increase in nominations may be causing some problems as well. I'm not claiming to have answers, but I think beyond temporarily eliminating the backlog, we should also think about how to prevent or reduce the severity of backlogs in the future. Wugapodes (talk) 20:42, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
If you can figure that out, we should definitely try it at DYK as well.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 21:02, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
I've been wanting to propose a GAN backlog drive for this month, just before the GA Cup. It should be a more lenient way to reduce GAN backlog, and it won't effect the GA Cup. I've been talking about this with a few people, and so far I've had positive feedback. I'm aware of the timing of things and how it could be very short notice, but if it goes ahead then I would prefer a launch date of 7 February, and an end date on the last day of the month. We haven't had a GAN sweep in two years, and I think if people agreed with me now, I could potentially help run it within a few days. JAGUAR  22:26, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
Keep in mind that the WikiCup is also running at the moment, where you get points for GA reviews as well, so it should be easy to motivate the participants there to join in. Zwerg Nase (talk) 23:43, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
@Bilorv: I did some more analysis to investigate your points. I didn't find that there was a significant difference in the rate of nominations during or after the GA cup (p=0.25). There is however a very significant (p=9.23x10-9) difference in the rate reviews are completed. So it seems the cup is successful in getting more reviews opened, getting them done faster, and does not increase the rate of nominations. In other news, I also did not find a significant bias toward passing or failing an article during the GA cup which is good news. Wugapodes (talk) 02:42, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
@Wugapodes: thanks for this analysis; it sounds very interesting. Although statistics isn't in my wheelhouse (I made marginally adequate grades in my stats class in college and grad school), I'll take a closer look when I have more time. I'm married to a math guy, so maybe I'll have him take a look, too. We need to publish the newsletter announcing the start of the new Cup, but I'd like to include in future newsletters. I'm gratified to hear some of your results, since they fulfill our goals for this competition. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 04:05, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

Reviewing several articles at the same time

I haven't done the cup before, and I couldn't find anything in the rules about whether reviewing several articles at the same time is allowed? if so, wouldn't it be possible to "hog" articles? For example, if I only wanted to review video game articles, I could start the review pages of all of them, and then review them afterwards? FunkMonk (talk) 19:07, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

@FunkMonk:, you could specialize in the same type of articles, something people do all the time even when they don't compete in the GA Cup, based upon their interests and inclinations. A strategy folks use in this kind of competition is to start many reviews, and then when they're passed, submit them to the competition. Be careful about incomplete reviews, though; that's something that others have done in efforts to game the system, and something the judges don't look at very positively. IOW, incomplete reviews, as the rules state, will be removed. Also, it's best to not submit your reviews until they passed to GA. That's the long answer. The short answer is that you can review any article you like, as long as you stay within the competition rules. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 19:48, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
Thanks! FunkMonk (talk) 21:06, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
@FunkMonk: Also keep in mind that if you start many reviews at once, it might take you a while to get through all of them and having such a long waiting period is not the nicest thing to do to the people who submitted them for review. But of course you can contact them and tell them that you might need a couple days more than usual and they should be fine. Most wait for their reviews for a long time anyway... Zwerg Nase (talk) 21:26, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
Thanks! I had a similar doubt. Sainsf <^>Talk all words 08:59, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

February 20 signup deadline?

I was wondering why, if the competition doesn't start until March 1, people have to sign up ten days in advance, by February 20 (according to the message that displays at the top of my Watchlist). Aren't you likely to get more participants—surely a goal of the competition—if you stay open at least a week longer? BlueMoonset (talk) 20:05, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

Hmm, that deadline does seem a bit short. Christine, is this correct? In comparison the WikiCup doesn't close its signup deadline for a month after the competition starts. I would say leaving the deadline two weeks longer so it gives a chance for more people to join as the first round is always the least tense. JAGUAR  20:24, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
I agree! Wasn't it handled like that last year? I don't quite remember... Zwerg Nase (talk) 21:27, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
Actually, the sign-ups ended half-way into the first month of the competition, both times we've held them thus far. The Feb. 20 deadline this time, although agreed upon by all the judges, was a bit arbitrary. If no one objects, we can go back to our practice and postpone the sign-ups until March 15, which is something we can do, since it's an administrative change and not a rules change. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 22:05, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
Thumbs up Maxorazon (talk) 12:42, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
Support. It is possible that some reviewers are not aware of the GA Cup yet, they might miss a fair chance. Sainsf <^>Talk all words 09:05, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

Re 2016 FAQ

Just a heads up that the FAQ is still stuck in 2015 standards and not 2016. If any of our benevolent judges can please update that, I would appreciate it very much. --Kiyoshiendo (talk) 08:28, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

@Kiyoshiendo: thanks for the heads-up. Done and updated. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 21:45, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

Quick pass

I have a doubt about the "quick pass" reviews. I generally give all my comments for a nomination in one go. Suppose the nominator responds to all of them satisfactorily enough within a short time. With no issues left to point out, I would pass the article. This has actually happened a few times with me. If this happens in less than a day or two of the start of the review, would that be considered a "quick pass" and violation of the GA Cup rules? Or is it just that we need quality reviews here regardless of the time they take? I would be grateful to the judges if they would help me out. Thanks, Sainsf <^>Talk all words 14:52, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

A "quick pass" would be if you grant the GA without pointing to any things that need to be cleared up. The scenario that you describe is absolutely acceptable. Zwerg Nase (talk) 15:02, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
Thank you! One more query. When are we required to create the "Submissions" page? I am new to the Cup, and could not find anything on this in the FAQ page or elsewhere. Sainsf <^>Talk all words 15:11, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
The judges create the submissions pages. Which we will do before the competition starts on March 1, since we want to wait until everyone who's signed up has. Then we'll create pages as more sign-ups come in. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 16:50, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
Thanks! Please consider adding this to the FAQ or Submissions page if it is not there already. Sainsf <^>Talk all words 05:51, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

Reassessement points

Dear fellow-judges, our points table seems to lack a column for reassessment points, or am I wrong here? Zwerg Nase (talk) 11:08, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

Re Signing up until March 16

If the games start on March 1 2016, why is the sign up sheet deadline so far into the start? --Kiyoshiendo (talk) 23:06, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

It gives editors who may not have known beforehand the ability to still sign up. With a little over a week to perform reviews, it's enough time for a reasonably dedicated reviewer to still have a chance to make it to the next round. It's rather common practice around here actually. The Wikicup kept sign ups open almost a month into the competition, and previous GA cups have also let editors sign up until well into the competition. Plus, if someone is late and didn't have enough time to make it to the next round, there's no real harm done so why not let them sign up for a while into the competition? That's my two cents. Wugapodes (talk) 04:14, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
  • A somewhat related question, how are time differences accounted for? It won't be March 1 for all editors at the same time. Are the resulting head-starts ok? FunkMonk (talk) 10:52, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
They are simply not accounted for. The game starts at midnight Wikipedia time for everyone, no matter what time it is where they live, so no-one gets a head start. Zwerg Nase (talk) 12:58, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
Wikipedia uses UTC time; that's the standard and what we'll follow as well. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 16:08, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
  • I started some reviews shortly after 00 Danish time, but though the revision history says it began at 00 March 1, now I'm unsure if it's the same time used for the cup. Can anyone confirm that for example the review for metal corset will count here? If not, I have 13 started reviews, three of which are done, that are ineligible... Most of the nominators haven't responded yet, so I'm not sure if that counts for anything... FunkMonk (talk) 09:23, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
@FunkMonk: I would say counting it should not be a problem. However, you should put all the reviews you do on your submissions page. Zwerg Nase (talk) 12:12, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
Good. An hour early should not have wasted such a great effort. It was surely unintentional. Sainsf <^>Talk all words 12:16, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
Thanks a lot! Took some attempts to get it right, but I'm submitting articles now... FunkMonk (talk) 12:27, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
I accidentally created this page[2] while submitting, it can be deleted... FunkMonk (talk) 13:13, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

Timing of submissions

Just for my clarification, do we list a review on our submission when we start it or complete it? I have one under way and I am not 100% sure if that should be listed now to show it is in progress?  MPJ-US  14:53, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

You can list the submission as soon as the review starts. Just keep updating the status of the articles on the Submissions page. Sainsf <^>Talk all words 16:03, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
Thank you for the clarification.  MPJ-US  20:38, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

Points table

If you try to order the points table by points, it doesn't work, as it orders by the highest numeral with which a number starts, not the value itself. Any way this can be fixed? I am not very familiar with these kinds of specifics in wikicode... Zwerg Nase (talk) 09:13, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

  • I can fix it. Give me a minute.  MPJ-US  11:47, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
  • It was sorting like it was text, adding in "data-sort-type="number"" changes it so it sorts numbers. Fixed  MPJ-US  11:51, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
Thank you! :) Zwerg Nase (talk) 11:54, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

Nominator banned from topic

This is a pretty strange issue. I reviewed the article Mariam Dadiani, which is a six months old nomination, and waited for the nominator to respond. But after poking the reviewer on the talk page, I just noticed that he/she has been topic banned from Georgia related articles in the meantime.[3] This means he/she can't even fix the comments on his/her own nomination?! What am I to do in this case? Ask someone else to fix the issues? Technically, it should probably had been quick-failed, but I've still wasted time and effort on the review... FunkMonk (talk) 19:19, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

A strange case indeed. In the end, you can always leave seven days for changes to be made, if nothing happens, then you can fail it and it will not be a quick fail. So the case would not hurt your GA Cup chances. Of course, that does not really help Wikipedia though. Maybe you can post the issue to a WikiProject concerned with the topic and try to find someone there willing to go over it? Zwerg Nase (talk) 20:32, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
I agree with Zwerg Nase. When I get a nominator who can't or won't respond to the review, I try to post on a wikiproject page. If, after a few days, no one steps up, fail it. At least you gave it a fair shot. Wugapodes (talk) 21:02, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
Also, just because the nominator isn't able to fix the issues doesn't mean it should be quick failed. Anyone can participate in a GA review, and I've seen and done reviews where multiple editors participated. That's why the review is transcluded on the talk page, so others can know about it. Wugapodes (talk) 21:04, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for the suggestions! I'll see if he/she answers, then I'll try the relevant projects, then maybe the GAN talk page... FunkMonk (talk) 21:13, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
As an aside, this isn't the first case involving Jaqeli - I once went through an entire review, which Jaqeli responded to, only to find, upon that article's promotion to GA, that Jaqeli was topic banned.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 22:40, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
  • I just had to quick fail a GA nomination by the same nominator with a major copyright violation Mirian III of Iberia. Side note - isn't there a rule that you should only have one GAN at one point? Two are listed here, a third is currently in the pink box on the nomnation page (Claim of the biblical descent of the Bagrationi dynasty). With a topic ban on the nominator of at least 3 articles perhaps these articles are a bit too contentious to be GAs? MPJ-US  18:11, 5 March 2016 (UTC)
    • And there are NINE nominations by this user. MPJ-US  18:11, 5 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Six of these are now in the ten oldest unreviewed articles, so they're likely to be grabbed, and a seventh is only four days younger; they were nominated by Jaqeli in a huge group on August 16, 2015. (FunkMonk is reviewing the eighth, and MPJ-DK just failed the ninth.) Two of these six oldest are in the top five, with the next four in places six through nine. If the WikiProject has been notified about the one review, you might want to point out that a whole bunch of nominations are likely to be under review in the week or so, and it would help to have people keeping an eye on them. BlueMoonset (talk) 18:48, 5 March 2016 (UTC)
I should have noted that Jaqeli, at nine nominations (now eight), isn't even in the top five of nominators with outstanding GANs. At the moment, the top number is thirteen noms, but I've seen it over three times that quantity. So no, there is no limit, and it would be hard to argue for one when people are waiting over six months to be reviewed in some cases. BlueMoonset (talk) 18:54, 5 March 2016 (UTC)
  • I must be thinking of thw FLC role of one per nominator. Good to know. And i will make sure the project is notified as part review, i can throw in the volume too.  MPJ-US  19:03, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

Failing due to inactivity

Hello, this is probably a stupid question that has already been answered, but if I fail an article because the user has been inactive and does not show any signs of responding (for the seven day time window), would that still count as a quick fail? Aoba47 (talk) 16:12, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

  • No that is totally fine, you should get full points for your part of it.  MPJ-US  16:19, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
Thank you for the clarification. Aoba47 (talk) 17:53, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
I've been trying to keep nominations up for as long as possible and contacted nominators if they didn't respond. Can be fruitful, but I'm still waiting for quite a few to do anything... FunkMonk (talk) 19:32, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
Contacting the nominators directly is probably the best idea; I just want to make sure that I follow through with everything correctly. I just want to do my best to help the nominator make the article its best and I am not as concerned with points. Thank you again for your suggestion, FunkMonk! Aoba47 (talk) 20:28, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
After seven days, you can close the nomination if there is no response. That is standard procedure, and in this Cup you will still be awarded points.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 20:49, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
Thank you for your response. I just want to be as helpful to the nominator as possible and help him or her get his or her article the level need to qualify as a GA. Admittedly though, I am pretty idealistic when it comes down to it. Aoba47 (talk) 00:55, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
@Aoba47: Awesome! That should be the spirit of this Cup. Good luck! Sainsf <^>Talk all words 07:27, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

Nominator unable to complete review

Hello, I am not sure if this is the current place to ask this question, but while conducting the review for Church of the Little Flower (Coral Gables, Florida), the nominator told me that they were unable to complete the review due to outside obligations. I was wondering what do I do at this point. The nominator suggested finding someone else to review the article (the nominator was very nice so I do not mean this in any way to sound negative towards that particular individual). I could fail the article as my comments would still be up for anyone who wished to revise the page and renominate it for GAN. Pretty much, my question is should I leave it open in case someone else takes it or fail it so someone else can pick it up later on his or her own time and renominate it? Hopefully, this question makes sense. Aoba47 (talk) 23:17, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

I'd leave it open for seven days - if no one has picked up the review within that time, it should be closed. That's my personal advice.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 02:59, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
Hi Aoba47. If it is clear that you will need other editors at the review, you can leave a request at the talkpage of the appropriate WikiProject; for this article I guess you should contact editors at WikiProject Architecture. I had to do this for two reviews of mine, and it has helped a bit to improve one of the articles. Sainsf <^>Talk all words 03:54, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
Thank you both for your responses. I have already closed the review as I thought it was best at the time to allow the original nominator or anyone willing to expand/revise the article to address my comments and look over the article without the pressure of time, but I will follow your suggestions for the future if I run into a similar situation. Aoba47 (talk) 04:28, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
Return to the project page "WikiProject Good articles/GA Cup/Archive 3".