Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Good articles/GA Cup/Archive 4

Active discussions
Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5

Copyediting issues

Hi. In a few of my reviews I have mainly given copyedit suggestions to the nominator (see Talk:Digambara/GA1 for example) but he/she does not seem to be focusing on them. I am not blaming the nominator(s), and the articles satisfy all other criteria except prose quality, and I do not wish to fail the article just for that. I wish to know if the reviewer can assist in general copyediting of the article-which in my reviews would mean resolving a large part of the issues. The issues the reviewer will work on, of course, exclude issues like what is or is not to be included in the article, images and POV. Sainsf <^>Talk all words 18:19, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

There's no problem with the nominator cleaning up the article as appropriate in the normal review process; the WP:GAN/I say "In the case of a marginally non-compliant nomination, if the problems are easy to resolve, you may be bold and fix them yourself." As that's a standard part of the GA review process, I'd assume it won't create any problems in the Cup. Josh Milburn (talk) 19:18, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
It should be okay for the reviewer to fix a few things here and there, although if they're ignoring all copyedit suggestions that's also a problem. I have had articles where I've fixed a few things myself. If there are quite a few copyedits then remind them that "well written" is a criteria/  MPJ-US  23:10, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
I usually fix obvious typos and stuff like that myself then reviewing. FunkMonk (talk) 23:43, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
Thanks to everyone for their responses. I will go ahead and fix whatever I should. Sainsf <^>Talk all words 06:48, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

Inactivity halfway through the review

I would like to know that if the nominator starts responding to the review comments but then becomes inactive there, for how long should the review be kept open? Sainsf <^>Talk all words 11:02, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

Seven days is the recommended waiting period. If you find a reason to keep it open longer, do so, but you are not obliged to. Zwerg Nase (talk) 11:05, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
Thank you. Sainsf <^>Talk all words 11:28, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

"Quick fail"

Can I ask who or what decided that a review in which "the reviewer does not allow the nominator to address any issues" is a quick-fail? That is not what the term has traditionally meant in a GAC context. Instead, a quick-fail is when a review is closed before it is complete because the article fails some single key criterion, such as when it has a problem with plagiarism or lacks any cited sources. (Also, that section of the scoring page needs to be looked at; it's very badly written.) Josh Milburn (talk) 09:37, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

Yes, quick fail means that you fail the review immediately because the article fails at least one very basic criterion. In this contest, review submissions might also be rejected if the reviewer failed to provided adequate feedback (which was not the case here). Zwerg Nase, I disagree with your assessment here, as J Milburn failed the article after a complete review, and even allowed the nominator a chance to fix some issues.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 22:07, 7 March 2016 (UTC)
Another note: While it is their prerogative to close a review is they feel an article needs substantial work, reviewers are encouraged to leave a review open for seven days to allow a nominator to address any issues, even if you think the article is a long way from meeting the criteria.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 22:09, 7 March 2016 (UTC)
@3family6: I beg to differ. The edit history cleary shows that the review was failed before changes were made by the nominator or any of the isuues were adressed. I agree with J Milburn that this interpretation of the rules should be looked into, but for now, I followed what the rules state. Zwerg Nase (talk) 22:43, 7 March 2016 (UTC)
Also, you write that In this contest, review submissions might also be rejected if the reviewer failed to provided adequate feedback, which would mean that it is never a quick fail if an appropriate review was given. But that is not what the rules say. And it is also not how they were interpreted last year when I reviewed Jose Luis Chilavert. Back then, I also wrote a thorough review but failed the article because it lacked multiple basic criterions for GA. And according to the rules of the Cup, I got no points for that review. Zwerg Nase (talk) 22:46, 7 March 2016 (UTC)
Sorry, I should have checked that before I commented. I have stricken that part of my comments. However, the fact still stands that J Milburn completed a full review. When I participated in the inaugural cup, I believe that I failed one or two nominations before seven days, and those reviews were accepted. I think that the rules need to be clarified on this point (and not just for the Cup, which merely follows the guidelines for the GA process in general in this regard). This just might be my personal opinion in this regard, though.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 22:51, 7 March 2016 (UTC)
As I said, I am very much open to looking into that. I believe if a reviewer gives good feedback but still fails because they do believe the GA status is too far along the way, they should be rewarded for their work, since it still contributes to the improvement of Wikipedia. However, we must look into that thorougly, since we cannot encourage reviewers to fail reviews simply due to lack of patience (which is not to say that I believe J Milburn did that, of course!). Zwerg Nase (talk) 22:56, 7 March 2016 (UTC)
Ah, there we are: "b) the reviewer does not allow the nominator to address any issues." That definition is specific to the Cup, and not the GARs in general, which is what my above comment was geared toward. I guess I disagree with taking a hard stance on this rule, but I can't fault you for doing so. I think next GA Cup this rule should be amended, since it's probably too late to change this rule now.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 22:58, 7 March 2016 (UTC)
Well, if we decide to change that, we could introduce a change for Round 2 of the Cup. This would ensure equality for all contestants. Zwerg Nase (talk) 23:00, 7 March 2016 (UTC)
I agree that this is a poor rule, and, while I'm not supporting changing the rules mid-competition (and nor will I change the way I review) I'm intrigued to know where it came from. Josh Milburn (talk) 08:32, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

The rule is not being applied evenly. At the point I write this, there are five articles listed on the submissions page that have been failed. As far as I can tell, all five were failed on the same day that the review was opened, all are long reviews with a lot of detail, and none of them allow any time for the nominator to respond. (Admittedly, in the case of three of them, the nominator is topic banned, so a response would not have been possible.) There needs to be consistency in the awarding of points. BlueMoonset (talk) 22:20, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

@BlueMoonset: I beg to differ. The 3 that had the topic banned nominator could be failed within the same day because they couldn't respond either way. The review by Azealia was discussed on Azealia's talk page and we concluded that the points should be given. However, this nominator of J Milburn's article is clearly active and even responded after he closed the review. The rule is being applied evenly, and in fact, I'm about to check the next batch of reviews, and will make sure to evenly apply this rule. Cheers. MrWooHoo (talk) 21:56, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
@MrWooHoo: A rule is being applied evenly, perhaps, but the rule (or, at least, the rule-as-written over at Wikipedia:WikiProject Good articles/GA Cup/Scoring) is not being applied evenly. The explanation you have just given is not one found on the scoring page. So not only is the rule-as-written poor, but you seem to accept this, as you have decided to enforce a different rule. To repeat: I hope this can be sorted out before the next competition. Josh Milburn (talk) 22:08, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
I think we'll put out a "rule change" before Round 2, J Milburn. MrWooHoo (talk) 22:10, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
MrWooHoo, Azealia did the review, concluded the article didn't meet GA standards and was unlikely to, and failed it then and there, not giving the nominator a chance to respond. Indeed, if you make two substitutions to your sentence about J Milburn's nominator it fits Azealia's perfectly: "the nominator of [Azealia's] article is clearly active and even responded after [she] closed the review." That said nominator agreed the next day (ex post facto) that Azealia was justified in her conclusion does not change the fact that both nominations were failed and both did not give the nominators a chance to respond to that failure before adding the FailedGA template to the article talk page. The rules, whether misguided or not, are very clear that no points are to be awarded in such circumstances, but if Azealia is to be given an exception, then J Milburn should be as well. BlueMoonset (talk) 06:04, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
I don't think a rule change is warranted. The rules clearly state that a nominator has 7 days to respond, and if there's no response during that time, the reviewer can and should fail it. It may be the case that the judges aren't being consistent in how we award points; if so, we need to be improve. However, awarding points is at the discretion of the judges. If it's obvious before the 7 days are up that a nominator isn't going to respond, we can award points. Remember, the point of this competition is to not only reduce the queue at GAN, but to help editors improve their articles. Quick failing doesn't do that. Also remember that if competitors try to review articles that have been in the queue longer in order to earn more points (a tried-and-true strategy), it's more likely that nominators won't be active anymore. No one should be penalized for that, but you should still have to wait the 7 days. That doesn't stop you from reviewing more articles in the meantime, and if a round ends before the 7-day period, you can roll it over to the next round. If you want to earn points for the review before a round ends, ping one of the judges and we'll consider it. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 16:25, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

I have added a note: "before waiting 7 days." We will make sure we clarify this in the next newsletter. MrWooHoo (talk) 18:07, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

@Figureskatingfan: Which "rules" are you talking about, here? The regular GA criteria and instructions do not require that any article is given seven days hold, and rightly so. The instructions explain that "If you determine that the article could meet the good article criteria if a few issues are fixed and you wish to prescribe an amount of time for these issues to be corrected (generally seven days), you may put the article on hold". Alternatively, "If you determine that the article does not meet the good article criteria, you may fail it". Simple. It may be appropriate to fail an article immediately yet still provide a full review. Such an a review would not (outside of the GA Cup, apparently) be a "quick fail". A quick fail is an "immediate failure": "An article can ... be failed without further review" if it meets certain criteria. The rules you are endorsing demand that reviewers leave reviews upon for some arbitrarily determined amount of time whether or not a quicker closure would be appropriate. This is counterproductive. @MrWooHoo: The rules are now worse than they were. The problem with the current rule was not that it wasn't specific enough. Instead, (at least) three problems exist: it relies upon a terrible definition of a "quick fail" (see above); it penalises reviewers who offer full reviews (at risk of repetition: a full review + failure without hold =/= quick fail. Please take a look at Wikipedia:Good article criteria#Immediate failures) of articles which do not warrant being placed on hold; and it is/was being inconsistently applied. Josh Milburn (talk) 21:54, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Looking at the immediate fail criteria the only one that would result in an actual full review being done is "It is a long way from meeting any one of the six good article criteria." - which is a judgement call, I'v seen some articles have a tremendous amount of work done in a short time and others where it only needed a little but nothing happened for days. So "long way" is not specific, it's "unmeasurable" and differs from person to person. to take the "unmeasurable" out of the equation the GA Cup by basically saying "upon completion of your review please allow 7 days for changes to be completed" - yes it's slightly stricter but it's to prevent anyone from gaming the system by doing a bunch of quick fails on articles. Let me ask you this - If you've completed your review what harm is it to let it sit for 7 days to possibly improve?  MPJ-US  23:06, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
We're not talking about quick/immediate fails- that's the point. I agree that actual quick/immediate fails should not be eligible for points, even when they are appropriate. As above (and definitely at risk of repetition...) the problem is that the current GA Cup rules redefine "quick fail", penalise full reviews with immediate closure (when they're closed as fails, at least) and are applied inconsistently. Josh Milburn (talk) 23:23, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
  • soooooo... I did not say immediate fail. But the situation where you because it is."too far" from the criteria. I mean why else fail it after a review instead of allowing time to address?  MPJ-US  23:40, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
    • sorry when I read immediate fail i do not think of a complete review.  MPJ-US  23:45, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
      • Continued. Chosing to close after a review is done if you think it is "too far from the GA criteria" right? You choose to close it right away, so that is where the judgment call is made. gA cup takes the judgment out by saying wait 7 days. And if it is such a thorn in your side I will gladly give up the points i got for the topic banned reviews that did not sit 7 days and then "immediate fail" is when you do not give anyone time to address it. MPJ-US  23:51, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
        • First, this isn't about me not getting points for a particular review. (I'm really not going to lose sleep over that.) It's about the rules being badly-written. Second, you have misunderstood. I did not quick/immediate fail the article. I "regular" failed it without putting it on hold first. As I have said repeatedly, there's a difference. The fact that the rules-as-written are blind to this is the problem. (Perhaps you could slow down a little? Your comments seem somewhat confused.) Josh Milburn (talk) 00:12, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
  • ERM what? You did not quick fail it.... Just failed it right away? I guess that is where you lose me. So because you didn't SAY "immediate fail" it is different.... Even though you failed it immediately upon the completion of the review? Sorry, don't see the distinction MPJ-US  00:55, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
  • MPJ-DK, what Josh Milburn did on his review of Talk:Saving Private Ryan (soundtrack)/GA1 is basically what you did on Talk:Claim of the biblical descent of the Bagrationi dynasty/GA1: give the nomination a complete review over an hour or three, listing a large number of issues, and concluding at the end of it that the article was simply too far from GA level, at which point the nomination was immediately failed. A "quick fail", contrariwise, is when, prior to starting the complete review, the reviewer concludes that the article is too far from meeting at least one of the six criteria, contains significant copyright violations, has a large number of problem templates attached to it, or is unstable (as per the good article criteria). BlueMoonset (talk) 05:40, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
  • BlueMoonSet is correct. The GA process instructions explain that there are four typical outcomes from a GA review- pass, fail, hold, and second opinion. Typically, all of these will involve offering a full review, but need not involve waiting around for any specified amount of time (note that "on hold" is a different result than "pass" or "fail"). The GA criteria outline the possibility of a quick/immediate fail, according to which reviewers are not obliged to offer a full review. I'm not sure how much plainer I can make the distinction. For some more examples, see Talk:Distinguished Service to Music Medal/GA1, Talk:Justinus Darmojuwono/GA1 and Talk:Burj Khalifa/GA1, which are real quick fails; reviews which I agree should not be eligible. But compare these to (say) Talk:Goosebumps/GA1; this is a full review which was closed as a fail straight off the bat. Josh Milburn (talk) 09:18, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
Okay, I guess I'll set this straight. I agree with you, Josh, that what you did in your review was not an actual quickfail. However, under the rules of the GA Cup, you didn't allow the nominator to address the issues within the timeframe and that's why (I presume) Zwerg didn't give you points. Moving on to the rules, MPJ-DK is completely right. We are trying to avoid people just failing articles with completely active nominators. I acknowledge that us judges are sometimes scoring these reviews in a different manner, and if you want us to now evenly apply the rules, I will gladly fail all of the reviews that people did for the topic banned nominator (or did not wait 7 days to complete)! We are redefining the definition of a quick fail, but only in terms of the GA Cup. The "7 days" rule is there for a reason! We as the judges will all follow it, and score/check all the reviews the same for that reason. That way, this won't happen again, with reviews being sometimes failed/sometimes passed.MrWooHoo (talk) 13:48, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

Josh, the "rules" I mention above are the GA Cup rules. The instructions for reviewing a GAN recommend that a reviewed article remain on hold for 7 days, a suggestion we followed in developing the GA Cup rules. Not only do we not allow for quick fails, we also don't allow for "quick passes," the concept of which only exists here. The point of the quick fail/pass rule is to guard against competitors failing and passing articles just for the purpose of earning points quickly, something that in our short history, has happened. We want substantial reviews that help editors improve their articles, that's all. You may be right, though, that our definitions of quick fails/passes aren't specific enough, so what may be needed is a better, more thorough explanation. I'll try and get that together by the weekend. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 15:55, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

This is getting silly now. MrWooHoo, I'm not disputing that Zerg was right to not award me any points based on the rules. I'm challenging the rules. Clearly, you think that the rules as written are fine. That's a shame. Christine, the GA review instructions do not "recommend that a reviewed article remain on hold for 7 days". That's straightforwardly false. The instructions say that if you choose to put an article on hold (which is only one option out of four listed), seven days is generally appropriate. The present discussion has clearly outlived its usefulness. I have nothing further to say about this topic, but neither am I going to change my editing in any way. I hope this issue is resolved for the next competition. Josh Milburn (talk) 18:53, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

About a newly created user account that joined GA Cup

TerribleTy27 created his account on 1 March 2016. With just 20 edits, he joined GA Cup on 4 March and started reviewing Bintulu and John Wilson Bengough. This just got me suspicious. Why a newbie wanted to become a GA reviewer? Is he doing it for fun or as a joke? Besides, I have been patiently waiting for a week and he does not seems to be editing since 4 March. Should I continue waiting or should I recommend GA Cup admin to remove TerribleTy27 as a reviewer? Thanks. Cerevisae (talk) 05:34, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

If they fail to continue reviewing, they will not amass the points needed to continue, and will automatically be dropped in Round 2.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 18:20, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for your info. I shall continue waiting then. Cerevisae (talk) 22:50, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
Given the issues with the other review—this is someone who clearly does not know the criteria or how to apply them—my inclination would be to roll back the reviews if no further edits are forthcoming within the next week. Frankly, no one with only 20 edits should be reviewing GAs to begin with, so the extra week seems quite generous to me; in any event, this novice Wikipedian's reviews should be closely monitored: with the best will in the world, they are likely to miss important details. BlueMoonset (talk) 00:42, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
Thanks BlueMoonset for your input. Cerevisae (talk) 01:56, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
Dear BlueMoonset, TerribleTy27 has passed the article Bintulu. It would be good that if you can appoint someone to verify that the article has really passed the GA criteria. Thanks. :-) Cerevisae (talk) 04:09, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
Cerevisae, I regret that a quick glance shows that the article has not passed the GA criteria. Indeed, there are significant grammatical issues throughout, especially with tense (future and past), missing articles, and so on. I recommend that you make an immediate request at the Guild of Copy Editors, if you wish the article to stand a good chance of eventual passage. User:3family6, User:Zwerg Nase, User:Jaguar, I think you need to act quickly to prevent further damage by this reviewer. One read-through of the lede is enough to tell anyone who knows what they are doing that the article needs work in the area of prose and grammar, and each case should be noted by a competent GA reviewer. I'll be posting a few comments on the review. BlueMoonset (talk) 06:25, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
@BlueMoonset: I believe taking part in the review is a good way of preventing damage done in the reviews already started. As for the participation in the GA Cup, we will look into the case. Obviously, kicking the editor out of the GA Cup might not stop them from doing reviews, so further observance might be warranted. Zwerg Nase (talk) 09:39, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

@BlueMoonset: I think a disqualification may be warranted, but right now we have a bigger issue we are trying to fix (the whole 7 days problem), so for now, we'll just be keeping a very close eye on TerribleTy (haha the rhyme). MrWooHoo (talk) 15:52, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, Zwerg Nase, MrWooHoo. TerribleTy27 has just reverted the approval and returned the nomination to the reviewing pool (upping the page parameter so the new review will be created on a GA2 page). We should probably keep an eye on his other open review, Talk:John Wilson Bengough/GA1. Cerevisae, I would make that Guild of Copy Editors request immediately; Bintulu is now the oldest unreviewed GA nomination, and is sure to be snapped up for a new GA review in a matter of days. Don't wait, and be sure to specify that it is a GA nomination. BlueMoonset (talk) 16:47, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
BlueMoonset, thanks for your suggestion. I have submitted the article to Guild of Copy Editors. Cerevisae (talk) 03:50, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

Revising the rules

Dear contestants, upon review of the "Quick fail" matter discussed above, we have come to the following conclusion. At least for this year's tournament, the GA Cup will uphold its rule that all reviews must give the nominator (or anyone else willing to improve the article) time to address the issues at hand, even if the article would qualify for what is usually called a "quick fail" in GA terms. To avoid further confusion, we will update the scoring page, replacing the term "quick fail" with the term "fail without granting time for improvements". After taking a close look at all points rewarded thus far in the competition, we have decided that to comply with these rules, we will revoke points from one review (located here). Other reviews in question will be upheld in this round alone because of specific circumstances (topic banned nominator). However, starting with Round 2, we expect all reviewers to put a review on hold for seven days in cases such as these as well, in order to apply the same standards to every competitor. To summarize: You will not get points awarded, if:

  • You pass an article without giving any hints on how it might be improved.
  • You pass an article with giving hints but the article still has issues.
  • You fail an article without giving any hints on how it might be improved.
  • You fail an article without assessing the whole article.
  • You fail an article with giving hints on how it might be improved, but do not let the nominator address these issues.

The recommended waiting period of seven days will be set as a minimum. Of course, you can give the nominator more time, if you feel this is necessary and helpful. Also, the period can be shortened if the nominator agrees with you that the issues cannot be resolved in an acceptable amount of time. MrWooHoo (talk) 14:14, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

"Submissions" in the previous GA Cups

I was interested in looking up the submissions and reviews by participants of the earlier GA Cups. But the link for "submissions" go to the present "submissions" page for those reviewers who are running for the Cup currently. For instance, it works here but not here. Not a big issue, but I feel this should be fixed if possible. I was really confused. Sainsf <^>Talk all words 17:12, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

Sainsf, it works for User:Jaguar but not for User:Sturmvogel 66 because Sturmvogel is a current competitor while Jaguar is not. We remove submissions at the end of each round if someone is moving forward into the next one. It's not customary to retain past submissions for past competitions. I suggest, however, that you look at the history, like I've done here [1]. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 19:26, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
Oh, thanks! That is helpful. Sainsf <^>Feel at home 11:52, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

Transferring submissions to next round

I can see now that some of my submissions will not be passed before the next round begins, due to nominator inactivity. So do I remove those reviews from my current submissions and move them to the next round, or how does this work so I don't have to fail them? FunkMonk (talk) 06:32, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

@FunkMonk: Look at the section just above this and the Scoring page. The submission you are done with will be removed by the judges, but the incomplete ones will be kept for the next round. It does not apply, of course, for the final round. Sainsf <^>Feel at home 07:02, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
Oh excellent, I was apparently not paying attention to the scoring page as I was wondering this as well.  MPJ-US  14:22, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
Ah thanks, I see this should be the text: "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)." FunkMonk (talk) 16:49, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
Right. So sit back and review. :) Sainsf <^>Feel at home 17:05, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

Another quick question

Are we allowed to start reviewing for round 2 yet? I noticed others were, so I was curious. Thanks. Carbrera (talk) 21:05, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

I think the post above this one pretty much confirms that we can start reviewing. Thanks anyway. Carbrera (talk) 21:18, 30 March 2016 (UTC)


  • How exactly were the pools for round two decided? Azealia911 talk 21:29, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
@Azealia911: They were randomly put into. We basically scrambled the people in each pool. MrWooHoo (talk) 02:09, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
I was wondering how the sencord, third, fourth and fifth high scorers from round one ended up in the same group, randomnesss... it is so random.  MPJ-US  12:41, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

Scoring question

I thought reviewers received 20 points if they reviewed an article from the pink box? I hope this doesn't come off as pushy or anything. Carbrera (talk) 04:27, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

They do. Sometimes we judges make a mistake. Which nomination was reviewed from the pink box?--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 20:21, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
I'm fairly positive that Little Fishing Creek was in the pink box. Is there anyway you could double check that? Thanks! Carbrera (talk) 21:23, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
I found the diff. Yes, Little Fishing Creek was listed.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 21:47, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

1 December 2015

December 1, 2015 is an important date in GA Cup lore. Why? Because that's the current date of the oldest "not yet reviewed" article. When the cup started just over a month ago I believe the oldest was from June, 2015. That's impressive work everyone. MPJ-US  21:37, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

Awesome! I hope the oldest nomination date is 1 June 2016 by the time this Cup ends. Sainsf <^>Feel at home 03:54, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
I can only agree, this is impressive work! Keep it up :) Zwerg Nase (talk) 08:19, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
There's one from August 27 (New England Patriots) that's just come back on the market today; I hope it gets snapped up quickly. Including this one, there are only seven remaining from 2015. BlueMoonset (talk) 22:48, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

Pools question

I was curious, if Pool A continues to not have any submissions, how would the 9 advancing to the next round be picked than? Or would it only be the Top 7? Thanks, Carbrera (talk) 11:45, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

Me too. It's a weird situation. Sainsf <^>Feel at home 13:21, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
It is certainly a weird situation. I think we should find a way to allow as many actual contributors as possible to advance. Zwerg Nase (talk) 15:06, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
Whoa, you guys are right; that is weird. I don't think that's ever happened before, in any WP competition. If it persists (the four in Pool A still have 10 days to make their submissions, though), it's something the judges will discuss. I don't think that it constitutes a rule change, so whatever we decide will be valid. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 15:08, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
Thanks. Sainsf <^>Feel at home 15:17, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

Everyone, the judges have discussed this situation. For now, for this round, we've decided that if no one from Pool A makes any submissions, we'll move the next two highest scorers from the other pools forward. We also talked about a possible rule change, not for this competition but the next one. The wording is thus: "You must review at least one article to move forward to the next round. If a pool is scoreless (meaning that no articles are reviewed in that pool), all contestants in the pool will be disqualified and their slots will be filled by the next two highest-scoring contestants in all other pools." Thanks for bringing this to our attention, and here's to hoping for participation from Pool A! Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 23:58, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

@Figureskatingfan: It is a very odd situation, thank you for bringing this to everyone's attention! Carbrera (talk) 00:42, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
Christine (Figureskatingfan), since some pools may have a only a single active reviewer, with the others being scoreless, perhaps the wording should be different (and the plan for this year should allow for this possibility). Also, I'm assuming that even a valid GAR review would be sufficient to get a person onto the scoreboard. True? Further, in the penultimate round, it's only the top scorer who is promoted. A possible wording: "You must review at least one article to move forward to the next round. If a pool cannot fill all of its assigned promotion slots because it has too many scoreless participants at the end of a round, any unfilled slot will go instead to the next highest-scoring contestant in that round who has not otherwise qualified for promotion to the next round." There's probably an elegant way to simply this further, but I think it's sufficiently generic now to handle all of the possible permutations. BlueMoonset (talk) 04:17, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
I feel we should go with BlueMoonset's wording. Sainsf <^>Feel at home 04:26, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
Thanks, @BlueMoonset: I like your wording, too. Unless someone else has suggestions, we'll go with it. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 21:52, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

As a participant in the group A, I think it would be unfair to the rest of the competitors if I advance with only two reviews, as I currently have. I propose the competitor with the highest score who can't advance because of the rules, to take my place. I think it's in the spirit of the Cup to have the most active participants advance, because the goal of the GA Cup is to clean the awaiting articles.--Retrohead (talk) 20:39, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

@Retrohead: that's very generous of you. It's up to you if you want to withdraw from the competition. However, you still have a little over 5 days to submit more articles. It's true that most of the other pools have a lot more points than you have, but the contestant currently in 2nd place in Pool C has only 56 points and has only reviewed 4 articles. It's totally your decision, but I recommend that you take advantage of the luck of the draw that put you in such a low-scoring pool, review as many articles in the next few days as you can, and let yourself be promoted to the next round. I think that's also in the spirit of the GA Cup, which is encouraging as many reviews as possible--especially the ones you make as a legitimate GA Cup competitor. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 23:53, 22 April 2016 (UTC)
You are indeed an Awesome Wikipedian, Retrohead! I feel Christine is right, you should respect your destiny. Sainsf <^>Feel at home 06:44, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

Round 3

The Pools page says that the wild card is the 4th place finisher, though the main page says it's the top 2 remaining scorers (the winner of each pool is automatically promoted). That's the only way to get to five for the final round, the standard number for the GA Cup.

An extremely minor thing from Round 2: shouldn't Azaelia be given a yellow background, since she wasn't one of the two top scorers in her pool? Effectively, when Pool A only had one person who scored, that second spot was opened up to an additional wild card scorer. Just a thought. BlueMoonset (talk) 18:17, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

Since the newsletter has just gone out, stating that the final round will be four people rather than five, it's pretty important to clarify this, and if the composition of the Finals is being changed in midstream, to explain why this was deemed necessary. Thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 15:29, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
Pinging the judges so they see this: @Figureskatingfan:, @3family6:, @Jaguar:, @MrWooHoo:, and @Zwerg Nase:. BlueMoonset (talk) 15:19, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
@BlueMoonset: I think it is a problem on the judges side. We will probably send out a "clarification" newsletter ASAP. Apologies. MrWooHoo (talk) 02:38, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
If we're being picky, I'd say that the new newsletter was still wrong; it's not the "4th and 5th place overall" who advance in addition to pool winners; it's the first and second of the remaining users. Overall, those users could be fourth and fifth, but they may also be second and third, second and fourth, second and fifth, third and fourth or third and fifth, as there's no guarantee that the pool winners will be the first, second and third overall. Josh Milburn (talk) 08:17, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
Yup, it's the two highest scoring people who did not win a pool. The Main page for the GA Cup describes it exactly. BlueMoonset (talk) 15:47, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
I'll just go ahead and ping all the users remaining: @Carbrera:, @Sturmvogel 66:, @Retrohead:, @Azealia911:, @MPJ-DK:, @Tomandjerry211:, @Sainsf:, and @Wugapodes: what J Milburn is saying is correct for reference purposes. MrWooHoo (talk) 02:49, 13 May 2016 (UTC)


@MrWooHoo: @Figureskatingfan: @Zwerg Nase: As much as I hate to say this, I will have to withdraw from the GA Cup at this time. Work has caught up to me, and I would like to spend the time I do have on WP for other things. Johanna(talk to me!) 00:47, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

@Johanna: Got it. Thanks for being such a great competitor. MrWooHoo (talk) 02:39, 13 May 2016 (UTC)
Yes, we're sorry that you've had to withdraw. Maybe we'll see you again next time. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 21:23, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

Round 3

Would any of the overseers be so kind to update my points for Round 3? Thank you very much. Carbrera (talk) 04:36, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

Figureskatingfan seems to have taken care of this. MrWooHoo (talk) 15:13, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

I Am the Club Rocker GA Review

The article above has been taken on review against the GA criteria by a user one month ago, following which he took a break from Wikipedia activity. However, he is still on hiatus, thus not being eligible to review it. Since Carbrera is planning to review it for the user within the course of the next week, we would most likely ask for this to be taken into Carbrera's account. Best, Cartoon network freak (talk) 01:39, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

Yes, I would be more than willing to review the article where the original reviewer left off. Thank you, Carbrera (talk) 01:41, 15 June 2016 (UTC).
This issue has been resolved; thanks anyway. Carbrera (talk) 17:01, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

What to do in this review?

I am not sure how to go ahead with Talk:United States Army Herald Trumpets/GA1. According to the nominator (and the major contributor here) LavaBaron, it seems the article has all the information it can have on the topic, though it does not satisfactorily cover all aspects of the topic. One of LavaBaron's GANs, Federal Emergency Plan D-Minus, was failed for similar reasons. I began a discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Good articles about how broad the article's coverage ought to be if we have included all information we could have at the moment, but it does not seem we will get a fast response. Presently I am not sure how to proceed with this review, and any guidance would be appreciated. Thanks, Sainsf (talk · contribs) 12:06, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

The easiest way to do this is to pull out a couple of good sources that cover the missing topics (even if you can only grab the titles from Amazon or Google Books, that's probably enough just to bring the topic up) and say something like "Shouldn't we have something about 'x' in the article per [source] and [source]?" If they dig their heels in and refuse, that's good enough grounds I would say for failing the review (normally we try and make people improve articles to the point of passing, but if they don't want to, then....) I can think of at least one GA review whose prose was alright and cited reliable sources but I ended up failing anyway because it only covered about 1/3 of the material that I felt should have been in there. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 12:20, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
Thanks Ritchie333, I will see if we can find any sources. I haven't yet searched for anything that should be there but isn't, will check. I know the nominator well, he/she is hardworking and I'm sure they would have tried their best to get everything on this. Sainsf (talk · contribs) 12:50, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

Quick Question Pt. 2

I hate to bother the judges again, but could one of them see if "Muppet*Vision 3D" was ever in the red box for nominations? I can't remember if it was or not and wanted to double-check. Thanks! Carbrera (talk) 00:51, 21 June 2016 (UTC).

It was number 6 on the list of Oldest nominations, and I moved it up to the top 5 some hours after that when one of the five above it was taken for review. So yes, it was. However, I thought it was enough to be listed as one of the ten in the Oldest nominations section of the Report page at the time the review was started. BlueMoonset (talk) 03:07, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
I was just curious for my point totals here. So it was in the red box? Thanks, Carbrera (talk) 03:09, 21 June 2016 (UTC).
@Carbrera: It's now been updated. Thanks for bringing up your concern. MrWooHoo (talk) 18:09, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

Objection to one of the judges

Jaguar has taken a self-enforced block for 1 month and will not be taking part in the remainder of the cup. Any further concerns on article quality should be managed by being bold or discussing on the relevant talk pages. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 09:34, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

After having seen Jaguar's perfunctory and distinctly below-par review of Cary Grant earlier today there's no way that he should be allowed to be one of the judges for this competition. Eric Corbett 20:19, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

@Eric Corbett: I remember that time in 2011 when you kindly held off a Somerset GA to let me finish my school exams, and various other comments of kindness throughout that year, which is why I've always had respect for you. How do you want me to proceed with this? JAGUAR  20:47, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
As far as I know, the judges don't do much more than bean-count the reviews, and any points they allocate can be challenged. What do the other judges think? Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 15:42, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
I'm sorry Jaguar, but my head is too far up my arse to allow me to see how you ought to procede with this. Eric Corbett 16:07, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
@Ritchie333: You're correct. The only thing that the judges do (that has to do with GA reviews) is to just make sure they have been done correctly and award points properly. MrWooHoo (talk) 23:08, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
How does that work when a judge amply demonstrates his inability to conduct a GA review himself? Eric Corbett
Has anyone actually addressed the underlying complaint here? In my opinion I don't find the review that Jaguar did to be nearly as egregious as Eric Corbett is making it seem. In fact, I don't see any problems with it. If this is a "sub-par" review then I severely underestimated the average review quality, because this is above-par in my opinion. Even reading through the article, I probably would have closed it similarly, and reading through the review, none of the problems raised seem to address any of the GA criteria, and many are covered in WP:GANOT. The people raising problems with the article seem to be expecting perfection of it, but that's not what a good article is, that's not even what an FA is. Mind you, until a few months ago, good articles were described as "decent" (and honestly, I'm thinking about adding that back since I think it's a good descriptor). The review was thorough and Jaguar touched on all of the criteria, and gave detailed feedback on the smallest of prose details, and even discussed issues. Nothing about it seems "perfunctory" and I don't see this as even close to a "sub-par" review. I think the problems here are overblown, but if you want to keep going with it, take it to WP:GAR and see if consensus can be gained to delist. I don't see anything actionable here however. Wugapodes [thɔk] [kantʃɻɪbz] 01:14, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
I agree. I don't see anything wrong with Jaguar's review.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 03:39, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
I agree with Wugapodes. This review is very thorough, at least in comparison to most other GA reviews I have seen. I don't see how it can be sub-par if it inspects all the GA criteria and, moreover, provides helpful suggestions. If the article is expected to be completely flawless, that is not what GAs are. Sainsf (talk · contribs) 06:16, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

I think Eric has much higher standards for GA and reviews than most people, which at times is a good thing I think rather than a bad thing, but not where it offends people. I think he thinks GA is 95% of an FA whereas I and I'm sure a lot of people see it as more three quarters the way on the road to FA. You could argue that for such an important article it might have had more comments questioning the content or phrasing itself, but it's not as if Jaguar just straight passed it.♦ Dr. Blofeld 10:02, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

As a general point, and to expand on part of what Dr. Blofeld said, it's right that (and the GA criteria specifically allow that) articles on bigger/more important/more academic topics are typically held to different kinds of standards than articles on smaller/less important/more "popular" topics. For instance, some sources appropriate for an article about a video game aren't anywhere near appropriate for an article about a medical condition (WIAGA#2b), while an article that offers "broad" (WIAGA#3a) coverage of a pop song that scraped the top 10 may well be much shorter and less detailed than an article that fails to offer "broad" coverage of an award-winning novel. Josh Milburn (talk) 11:34, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

I see Jaguar has been (self-requested) blocked for a month, so obviously he won't be able to finish off judging the remainder of the reviews for the cup final. Regarding Talk:Cary Grant/GA1, I had a small number of concerns that parts of GA criteria 2d, 3b and 4 had not been brought up (even if it turns out there is no problem, a review probably should still mention them), and these have all been resolved, so I'm happy to endorse the article now meeting GA status. I think the threats to send it to GAR have been too much like threats, and could be resolved more amicably (eg: "we really need to look at the close paraphrasing on the quotations, if we don't fix it now somebody might send it to GAR and then we'll have to do it anyway"). I agree with what Blofeld and Josh have said upthread - many of the Boat Race articles written by The Rambling Man can be comprehensively covered by a few book sources, whereas something like Talk:Genesis (band)/GA1 is the sort of level of review I would expect against a major topic and contains pages of welcome constructive criticism. (BTW, comments like "Official Charts Company says "Duchess" peaked at 46 in the UK, not 42" - ie: directly challenging the factual accuracy of the article - are the sort of thing I just don't think we do enough of during GA reviews and all need to up our game a bit).

In the attempt to pacify things, as somebody who's done over 200 GA reviews from both sides of the fence and semi-regularly gives out advice and criticism over GA reviews anyway, I am willing to step in and replace Jaguar as a judge if it would help matters. Alternatively, if we can run on simply the remaining judges, that's probably acceptable as the cup does not have long to run now. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 11:55, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

I think sometimes it's a good thing if another editor questions the quality of a review of another editor. There's reviews worse than this one taking place every day on here. Often reviews could do with being reinforced with another one, especially on important topics. Echoing what Milburn says, core article perhaps do require a stronger review and standards at times, perhaps for core topics we should invent a new rule which means that two people rather than one have to review it? If it improves the quality of the article and the writer is up for it I support that. But there is a way to criticize a review without offending the article writer or reviewer or immediately demanding that it be delisted, which in this case was avoidable. I'd expect that sort of hostile stance from Collect or Lightshow, but not from an experienced reviewer and somebody I've often stood up for on here.♦ Dr. Blofeld 17:43, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

I'm not threatening to delist, I'm simply stating a fact. Had there been a proper GA review done rather than this two-hour rubber stamp job I would have no reason to involve myself in a subject that frankly doesn't interest me in the slightest, core article or not. Eric Corbett 17:44, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
" I am going to give it a "nasty grilling", in fact I'm going to delist it until a proper review is done " was a blatant threat.♦ Dr. Blofeld 13:51, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
It was simply a clear statement of intent. You know as well as I do that Jaguar's review was well below what should be expected, and that you ought to have voided it instead of wasting your time in berating me for pointing out the evident truth. Eric Corbett 15:47, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
A number of editors, including myself, disagree that it was a sub-par review. No editor in this thread, save you, has expressed any support for the idea that Jaguar should be removed as a judge. If you still think the article doesn't satisfy the GA criteria, despite pretty much everyone in this thread saying they think it does satisfy them, then take it to GAR already. But I doubt that will be productive, since you've failed to gain consensus that it doesn't satisfy the criteria on the review page, then failed to gain consensus here, so I doubt a third forum will vindicate you. Drop the stick, back away from the horse. Wugapodes [thɔk] [kantʃɻɪbz] 16:14, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
I will do what I please when I please, no need for any more of your blustering. And let me remind you that an individual GAR is within my remit alone. Eric Corbett 16:23, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
It actually isn't within your remit alone, largely because you don't own the process, but also per WP:GAR: community reassessment should be used if delisting is likely to be controversial Considering few if anyone here, except you, seems to think the article needs a reassessment, let alone a delisting, I'd say that would be particularly controversial. And blustering? Really? When pressed for specific issues with the article below you don't give any, and in response to one review you think is subpar you seek an editor be removed from judging the GA cup. If you have further issues that are directly related to the GA cup, I'll gladly listen, but if your issues are with a particular article or a particular review, I point you to the article's talk page. Wugapodes [thɔk] [kantʃɻɪbz] 17:00, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
Yes it is within my remit, whether you like that or not. Eric Corbett 17:16, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
Um, are the issues so serious that this qualifies for a reassessment? The discussion here doesn't seem to imply that, perhaps Eric should point out a few major issues he sees and we don't. Sainsf (talk · contribs) 16:20, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
They were, but I haven't looked at the article recently. Eric Corbett 16:26, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
I appreciate your offer to replace Jaguar as a judge, Ritchie, but I'd rather not at this late stage in the game. That's why we have six judges, so that we can fill in for each other as needed. If Jag drops out of judging, which wouldn't surprise me, we'll keep you in mind for next time.
Personally, I think that GAs are 50% of FAs, partially because it takes only one reviewer to pass an article to GA, whereas it can take up to 20 to pass a FA. Depends upon the article. Some simply don't have the potential to grow up and become fully mature FAs. Most articles, however, can become GAs, if they're comprehensive and use all available reliable sources. It's so much fun when I work on developing an article and it goes against my expectations for growth and development. One of the goals of the GA Cup is to help articles achieve their full potential, since although it's not required, the expectation is that an article pass GA before it's submitted for FAC. We've helped do that, I think. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 19:37, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
Well I always treat a GA as 75%-80% there. I try to make articles pretty comprehensive, near what you'd expect for FA level in terms of scope of research and then move on, though being "comprehensive" isn't an official requirement for GA. Articles will usually need a trim and copyedit and a lot of minor editing to get it up to FA status then, editing which is needed. but it's time which I'd rather put into developing another poor article. I knew Grant needed a trim but it was a still at the sort of level I thought appropriate to nominate for GA.♦ Dr. Blofeld 21:31, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
It wasn't. I haven't looked at it recently, so we'll see if it does now. Eric Corbett 21:54, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

It was Eric. You were wrong. It did still need a trim and removing some of the details but it was reasonably close enough to meet the GA criteria and you know it. It might not have met GA criteria in your book, but what you expect of GA is not necessarily what the majority expect. I'm sure you could spot a lot of issues, but GAs are certainly not expected to be even close to FA level or close to perfect.♦ Dr. Blofeld 13:34, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

I was not wrong, you were in allowing this poor review to stand unchallenged, along with the others who are trying to defend it. Eric Corbett 17:21, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
I would have welcomed a further thorough review though, that's the difference. You were warmly welcome to have to conducted a vigorous review of it yourself to ensure that more issues were ironed out. Had you done that I'm sure we'd see eye to eye on this. I can't be held responsible for the quality of an article review.♦ Dr. Blofeld 18:32, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Talk:Jacques Rivette/GA1

I was disappointed to see this review closed right at deadline (technically two minutes late) after 7 days and 3 minutes on hold despite the nominator requesting more time the day before because he or she hadn't noticed that the review had started.

This nomination had been the oldest unreviewed GAN when it was picked up, and after the nominator had waited over four months, I think it's inappropriate to be so strict with the deadline. Under the circumstances, I would suggest that the review be reopened; even if not, points should perhaps be withheld from this submission. BlueMoonset (talk) 12:57, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

@BlueMoonset: In our last newsletter, we said we'd be strict about the deadline, so the two reviews that Carbrera failed/passed after 23:59 won't be counted. Thank you for letting us know. MrWooHoo (TC) 13:45, 1 July 2016 (UTC)
Return to the project page "WikiProject Good articles/GA Cup/Archive 4".