Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Good articles/GA Cup/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Astonishing numbers

Even if I had not gotten burnt by trying to do both the GA cup and the Wiki cup I know for a fact that I could not have put up enough numbers to crack the top two. That is an amazing volume of work guys, kudos.  MPJ-DK  13:40, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

I'd also like to congratulate both Carbrera and Sainsf on their astounding point totals. It was a very tight race. MrWooHoo (T • C) 13:45, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

Agreed, amazing GA Cup, great work by everybody! The number of reviews you guys did was beyond my wildest dreams. Zwerg Nase (talk) 13:54, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

This is truly impressive!--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 14:08, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Hehe thanks, actually it was Carbrera's wild speed that made me afraid and I had to take up reviews at a speed I had never imagined LOL. But thanks to all other competitors no matter what round they made it to, all have helped with the backlog! Sainsf (talk · contribs) 14:09, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

Yes, astonishing is right. Our success is entirely due to the competitors, and their enthusiasm in reviewing articles. We should all be proud. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 16:04, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

Lol thanks guys. Congrats to Sainsf on his win too! He totally George Bush'd me haha! Carbrera (talk) 16:45, 1 July 2016 (UTC).

Amazing indeed. It would be even more amazing if the majority of the reviews were any good. Eric Corbett 23:18, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

That's disappointing to here from such a talented and veteran Wikipedian. You should definitely consider participating in the GA Cup next year, as your talent and knowledge would pave your way to the top! Cheers, Carbrera (talk) 23:26, 1 July 2016 (UTC).

Great suggestion, show everyone how it is done. I welcome an opportunity to improve. MPJ-DK  23:29, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

I've already shown you. Sadly though I would not able to do a GA review in two hours, so I would be nowhere near the top. Eric Corbett 23:33, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

oh thank you, I shall endeavor to be more like you, but in that vein I cannot actually tell you anything but be vague, but in the most delightful way. I have sat at your learning tree.  MPJ-DK  23:41, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

Clearly you haven't, why lie about it? Eric Corbett 23:50, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

Lie? I would never shame my WikiSensei like that, or is this part of your life lessons?. MPJ-DK  00:19, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

No, it's part of yours. It's very clear that GAN has gone to the dogs. Eric Corbett 00:33, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

If anything, GAN has been exposed to more users. I had never even learned about the GA Cup until Azealia911 discussed it with me during a review for one of my articles. The GA Cup is a really good thing to have on Wikipedia. Carbrera (talk) 00:55, 2 July 2016 (UTC).

I'm not sure it's an entirely good thing to have. Surely, its purpose is to reward those conducting thorough and plentiful reviews. But it also leads to half-hearted and blink-or-you'll-miss-it reviewing from people who are desperate to chalk up the numbers just to win it. I agree with Eric; GAN is a shadow of its old-self and I haven't bothered with it for years now. Cassianto^Talk 07:17, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

Personally, although I co-created the GA Cup, I've never understood why folks partake in these kind of competitions just for the sake of it, just for racking up points. My experience with the WikiCup was that it motivated me to create and work on content, and seeing how I compared with others' efforts made it fun. It was my hope that we could replicate that kind of experience here. All of the reviews I checked as a judge in this competition fulfilled our requirement for leaving reviews open for at least 7 days to allow nominators to address concerns. Reviewing articles is more of an art than a science, so an article you review may be different than someone else's. You guys have these complaints about GAN, but you offer no suggestions. How can the GA Cup encourage conducting thorough and thoughtful reviews? We've attempted to address it some by offering more points for longer reviews, since our logic is the longer the review, the more thorough it is. Also, articles with older nomination dates often tend to be more complicated and require more thought. I mean, we want to shorten the long queue, which we've done, but we also want high-quality articles. Is there something else we can do? Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 16:33, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

@Figureskatingfan: I think the GA Cup could probably do with a revamp. Perhaps if there was a decent prize for most quality reviews rather than quantity of reviews we'd see an improvement?♦ Dr. Blofeld 11:52, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

I guess this is as good a time for a shameless plug as ever, but I recently proposed a special report on the GA Cup for the Signpost based on my previous analysis. If there are things you and other editors would like to see analyzed, I'd be happy to try and look at them. Personally, I think the GA Cup is doing a good job, and the concerns are overstated. For example, I looked at whether the first GA cup led to more passes than usual and found that it didn't: the rates of passing and failing were about the same during and after the first GA cup. Perhaps that's a problem with GAN in general, and the period I looked at was about a year ago, but it still gives me some confidence. Wugapodes [t^hɔk] [kantʃɻɪbz] 18:45, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

I don't want to sound like the Eric Corbett Fan Club^® but I've checked through a couple of GAs recently and been quite worried about the quality of the reviewing - I've already had to delist one and it looks like we might have to delist a few more :-( I did take part in the first GA cup but dropped out before the end partly from exhaustion but also that I was concerned that doing so many reviews would, all else being equal, result in a nose-dive in quality. In particular, I'm not sure people focus enough on factual accuracy, verifiability, and broadness of coverage, and when I do a review I always try and put comments like "couldn't we add something about 'x'?" or "I can't see where 'y' is mentioned in the source given". Even then, I seem to recall a substantial amount of reviews I undertook during the cup that failed - I emphasised that a fail should not be taken personally and simply means an article is not ready; I've had the odd complaint (eg: Talk:Yoko Ono/GA1) but generally people have taken it with good grace.

Moving forward, one possibility for future cups is to only award points if the judges are satisfied that all parts of the GA criteria have been look at; therefore a review that looks at prose but nothing else gets no points. I don't know how practical this is, and it's more work on the judges, but it may be one way of alleviating concerns. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 10:17, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

Personally, as a judge I try to go through the new GA when I review a submission, I've rejected some submissions in the past because I felt the reviewer promoted the article too soon, and even submitted one GA for reassessment (which it did pass after some work). This Cup I wasn't quite as thorough, but the articles that I checked seemed to be satisfactory at a glance.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 15:08, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

I think we could implement what Ritchie is saying here, and honestly it is in the rules that we judges must make sure that the reviewer made a thorough review in terms of the GA criteria. Also, I think we'll do a feedback form/page where we could get some input on how to both reduce the backlog as well as making sure that the articles passed meet the criteria. Thanks to everyone who has raised their concerns. MrWooHoo (T • C) 22:47, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

Élizabeth Teissier

Any chance of a review? It's over four months old. While it's only the 45th oldest nomination, it is one I think holds a lot of merit Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 01:01, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

• Not sure I see why this is more "meritus" that GANs that are even older than this?  MPJ-DK  01:31, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
  • Because I asked. =P Seriously, though: Honestly, I just want to get it done while I'm activekly watching Wikipedia, not when I'm in the middle of a Wikibreak, which gets more likely if I don't ask. There's no point delaying it two more months so it is the oldest, then closing it because I'm not able to respond to requests because it wasn't done in any sort of reasonable timescale. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 01:33, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

Newsletter

Just got the latest newsletter on my talk page. I noticed the mention of a possible break during the holidays in December and wanted to state that that is an excellent idea. Just putting that out there. Thanks, Carbrera (talk) 01:53, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

Is the GA Cup starting in a little over four hours?

The GA Cup should, according to the schedule on the main GA Cup page, be starting on November 1, 2016, or about four and a half hours from now. I've been assuming it will happen because of this, yet I've seen nothing on the GAN page indicating that a cup is about to start, or urging people to sign up, and the finals pages from earlier this year are still in place.

If the GA Cup isn't going to happen starting in November, please let me know, so I can stop telling people that with the cup coming up, the odds are better that their unreviewed nominations will be picked up. (Right now only 28 of 437 nominations are actually under review, which is the lowest number being reviewed I've seen since at least early 2012, so I'm hoping it's because reviewers are waiting for November 1 to roll around. Of course, if there isn't a Cup about to start, we may be in real trouble here.) BlueMoonset (talk) 19:28, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

It is starting, but us judges aren't sure about how to use the mass messaging system.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 00:08, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

Glad to hear it. I've been staking out my reviews and updating these applicable project pages for the 4th Cup. I think there's still some cleanup to be done and one of our contestants is also listed as a judge, so I'd ask the more experienced editors if they could straighten this up. This is my first Cup so I don't want to step on toes by being bold. Chris Troutman (talk) 04:15, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

@3family6: I have "mass message sender" rights on my account. I can help you with any of the messaging issues. Please ping me for so. As I can see, the participants list is too short, and it is better to send another invite to sign-up before round 1 ends. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 09:03, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

@Krishna Chaitanya Velaga: - yes, please give me some advice. I'm happy to send out an invite.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 01:07, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

@3family6: I prefer sending a mass message again to the names listed here. Coming the message that is to be sent, please see that sample on top of my sandbox. Please make adjustments wherever necessary, then we will send the mass message. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 04:56, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

I made some adjustments. If you could send this to Wikipedia:WikiProject Good articles/GA Cup/Newsletter/Send, Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send, and Wikipedia:WikiProject Good articles/newsletter participants, I'd appreciate that. Thanks for taking this on.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 16:45, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

@3family6:  Done. I have sent the message to former two lists, but the later one doesn't comply with the format, however, most of the users in the third lists were already covered in the former two. A total of 638 messages (some may duplicates — users who have their names in both the lists) were sent between 1:30 am to 1:45 am (UTC). Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 01:50, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

Thank you so much!--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 03:14, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

Have I signed up? If not, where can I sign up? Josh Milburn (talk) 13:21, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

@J Milburn: Here. Zwerg Nase (talk) 13:35, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

Sorry if I'm being dense, but this is all a little opaque. Where's my submissions page? Where is the leaderboard? All I can find is stuff from the previous competition. Josh Milburn (talk) 19:58, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

Added banner about GA Cup to WP:GAN page

I've added a banner to the GAN page that mentions that the GA Cup has begun, and people can sign up through November 14, with a link to the sign-up page. If the date is incorrect, or is correct now but later gets extended, let me know and I'll be happy to modify it, or you can make the necessary modifications yourself. I hope this brings in more participants. BlueMoonset (talk) 05:11, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

Legobot has been down since November 12, and StatisticianBot (which updates the Report page) has been down since November 4. The StatisticianBot owner has been notified via email, and the Legobot owner posted about the bot's downtime, though it was supposed to be only a few hours. At any rate, I thought I should mention these issues in case you might want to extend the GA Cup signups because the nominations page isn't getting updated. If not, I'll do my best to remember to take down the banner at around 23:59 UTC on November 14, which is a bit over 16 hours from now. Thanks! BlueMoonset (talk) 07:38, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

Hope it is okay

I participated last time but not this time, so I was bold and went ahead and created the submission spaces for all competitors who have signed up so far and updated the "Submissions" page. I figured I had time and this way everyone has a place to track their progress. Since I am not a competitor this year I hope this sort of "non-judge" gnomish work is okay? Let me know if something is messed up.  MPJ-DK  20:42, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

• And the "pools" page too, I know it said "only judges edit" but I figured no harm in this edit.  MPJ-DK  21:01, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

@MPJ-DK: Of course, this is much needed. Thank you very much. But as the nominations are open till 14 November, there may more participants adding up. So as you've created the present, would you create for them too? You can keep a track here. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 04:50, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

Krishna Chaitanya Velaga sure I have that page on my watch list so I can keep up with it.  MPJ-DK  14:07, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

I certainly don't mind this kind of help. Krishna Chaitanya Velaga went ahead and wrote the newsletter for us judges!--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 04:57, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

@3family6: I see that the sign-up period is to end soon. What about December holidays that were mentioned in our newsletter? It was said that a poll will be taken among the participants, any update of this? If a mass message it to be sent, please feel free to ping me. I am glad to help you. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 10:07, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

I haven't heard anything from any other judges. If it is just me running the Cup right now, we certainly will need to take a break. I'll work on this. I'm off work tomorrow, so I'll have some time.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 20:01, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

As for me as a judge, I will probably not be able to do a lot until mid-December, but after that, I am free. So I think we could do without a Holiday break. Zwerg Nase (talk) 08:39, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

@GA Cup judges: Just created this template that sends a ping to all the judges. Please confirm whether you've got the ping, and also share your opinion on the holidays. Also add this template to the GA Cup main page, with a brief explanation. For the next GA Cup if the judges change, then the template can be changed too. If you have any doubts regarding the template, please ping me. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 04:20, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for that! Just like to say that as a judge I will be actively reviewing submissions with the exception of Christmas Eve to New Years Day, when I most likely won't be editing. I think Christine is going to be busy this month but at least the three of us will be here. JAGUAR  13:50, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

I'm just busy, period. ;) I appreciate that you guys have stepped up. I'll try and review submissions more, since the holidays for me also slow things down some. I think continuing through the holidays is fine. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 19:32, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

School is getting into the way with a lot of things, but I should be able to review, whether we have a break or not. MrWooHoo (T • C) 00:11, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

Talk:Chamber pop/GA1

The article was reviewed as part of the GA Cup, listed, and subsequently nominated for DYK. After promotion to prep by a DYK reviewer who failed to check for close paraphrasing or copyvio, the article was tagged for plagiarism with this edit, and I have just pulled it from prep. Under the circumstances, I would hope that the points awarded for this GA review would be withdrawn, and the reviewer reminded that checking for plagiarism is a regular and required part of GA reviewing. Thank you. BlueMoonset (talk) 01:46, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

I raised my concerns with the editor in question and after getting the brush-off, made a formal complaint. I am dismayed that this gaming of the system is going on and I exhort this WikiProject to take action before it gets worse. WP:AFC stopped doing backlog drives altogether because of editors like this. I would hate to see this WikiProject suffer the same fate. Chris Troutman (talk) 02:29, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I note that this is certainly not the first time that concerns have been raised; see also Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Good articles/GA Cup/Disqualification Log#Cartoon network freak and the user's talk page. Though I am not accusing anyone of malice, I suspect that this user's reviews are not particularly thorough. Josh Milburn (talk) 02:32, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

I apologize for missing the plagiarism - I was only using Earwig's tool in my check, and even that wasn't always working. Cartoon network freak, I will not disqualify you yet, because this review was done around the time of Chris's report on the talk page and prior to my warning. If something like this is found on later reviews, you will be disqualified. You have done some later reviews, and they have been checked by the judges, so I'm hoping that this is all in the past. But please keep this in mind.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 05:38, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

Rounds

Are we on round 2 now, or are we pushing things back a month since there's not 16 with points? Wizardman 14:36, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

@GA Cup judges: I ping the judges to update the pools, submissions, and make way for round 2. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 15:24, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

I don't think the newsletter got sent out - the options were to keep Round 1 going through December, or take a break before Round 2.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 05:12, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

If the idea either way is not to start Round 2 until January, then why not just say so and adjust the main page of the cup accordingly? On the other hand, Round 2 could be considered active right now, the ten users with points could continue, and the top 9 of them eventually progress into Round 3. I get the impression that the hearts of the judges really aren't in this cup: things started late, no notice was put up at GAN that it was starting, the newsletter went out late, and statistics aren't being kept. It isn't helping that StatisticianBot is still down, but then none of the participants seem to be taking on the oldest hooks, so it isn't as if those updates are critical. I'm wondering whether it might be better to stop the cup and start anew in February, when there might be more enthusiasm from all concerned. BlueMoonset (talk) 16:49, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

I hate to say it but BlueMoonset's analysis is correct. This year's cup has suffered from low turnout and interest. There doesn't seem to be much of an incentive in this anymore, so perhaps a WMF-funded GA Cup should be the next step? JAGUAR  17:04, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

While BlueMoonset might be right, I don't think it's fair to stop a contest already underway. I urge the judges to announce when round one will end (with time for editors to act) and when round two will begin. Maybe this WikiProject ought to talk to Funds Dissemination in the future. Chris Troutman (talk) 18:07, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

I've sent out a newsletter with a survey and I do apologize for not ending up sending out this newsletter earlier (I've been very busy with school lately). MrWooHoo (T • C)

I could've sent out something, but I don't have mass messaging. How do I sign up for that?--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 17:50, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

One idea that hasn't been considered is to reopen the competition to additional editors, since Round 1 hasn't closed, and allow signups for another week or two. This might help get another handful of active participants. BlueMoonset (talk) 20:11, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

I'm not opposed to that.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 04:45, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

It looks like someone new signed up today (with a completed review) so you'll have to decide whether to allow it or not. If the judges do decide in favor of reopening, let me know, along with the details, and I'll put up a notice on the main GAN page, like I did back in November. Thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 15:36, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

I agree, we should allow signups for two weeks, and if still not enough people join, then leave them open for another two weeks. How does that sound? Really I think we should offer more of an incentive for the GA Cup, let alone any backlog drive. JAGUAR  22:37, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

I agree with Jaguar's proposal here. MrWooHoo (T • C) 04:29, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

So, details, please? Are signups open now, and when is the final date that people can join the cup? Thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 17:40, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

I've joined with two reviews so far. Anyone care to check them? Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 21:55, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

Sorry I haven't been around for this discussion; been swamped with work and other responsibilities. Yes, the newsletter needs to go out. My understanding of the judges' decision was that we'd keep sign-ups open for the month of December, and start Round 2 in January. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 03:59, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

The Main page for the Cup should probably be updated, then, to reflect the revised schedule and make it official... BlueMoonset (talk) 06:20, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

Now that the Main page for the Cup has been updated, I've added a notice to the WP:GAN page that the Cup is open again and editors can sign up through December 29. If there are any changes the judges would like to make to the notice, please feel free to do it, or to ask me to make the appropriate changes. Thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 16:14, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

I'm rather late to this conversation, but an idea I had while reading Christine's response that might be worth thinking about is doing the first round as flights. Have open sign ups for a month, hold round 1A for a month, give those editors a month long break, open signups and allow those new sign ups to compete in round 1B and the top from both flights move on to round 2. I think it kills two birds with one stone, it prevents burn-out from the more experienced editors who sign up early, and allows for the addition of new reviewers as the competition goes on and becomes more noticed (plus it may help separate new reviewers from more experienced ones, allowing for judges to better check for quality for those worried about GA Cup affecting quality). Wugapodes [t^hɔk] [ˈkan.ˌʧɻɪbz] 04:32, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

Hey Wugapodes, I think this idea could be considered, but unfortunately I haven't been able to contact a couple of the judges to get a consensus on this, so this input will be useful for the future. MrWooHoo (T • C) 22:24, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

I think it's too late to completely restructure the Cup - extending the sign-ups through December should help this time.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 23:39, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Good articles/GA Cup/Submissions/Adam Cuerden

I'm sure I'm just missing something silly, but what did I do wrong with Corvus (constellation)? Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 01:58, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

Wrong brackets! I've fixed it. Josh Milburn (talk) 02:20, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

Thanks! Suppose I should also put up the one I suspect is ineligible for points, as it was, basically, a list, so not eligible for GA. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 02:28, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

How to complete my sign up - am confused...

I signed up at Wikipedia:WikiProject Good articles/GA Cup/Sign-up but what do I do next? I did post a query on Jaguar's talk page (since he's a GA Cup Judge) but I have no idea about what to do next: getting my submissions page started, etc., etc. Can someone point/link me to instructions or post here (or on my user talk) a list of what I need to do? Also, I did a review earlier this month but before I signed up - can that Review be counted? Thanks, Shearonink (talk) 02:36, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

I created your submissions page for you: Wikipedia:WikiProject Good articles/GA Cup/Submissions/Shearonik. I'll have to talk with the other judges about whether we can allow that review or not.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 03:07, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

Thanks 3family6. Is there a WP page somewhere that lists all the step-by-step instructions for 2016 Cup participants? With 20K+ edits I do sort of know my way around WP by the point and if I'm confused maybe others are too... Re: that GA Review: It's really no big deal if Trinity War isn't counted, I just wanted to know. Thanks, Shearonink (talk) 03:43, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

@Shearonink: I'll just quickly describe what you need to do. First, you will complete a GA review (either pass or fail it). Then, you'll add your reviews on to your "submissions page" as instructed here. The judges will then "check" your review and score it according to the scoring page. Then, your points will be added to the pools page. Cheers! (Also, I believe the article you reviewed before you entered the Cup won't be checked.) MrWooHoo (T • C) 05:38, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

so...am I "Shearonik" or "Shearonink"?

My Wikipedia:WikiProject Good articles/GA Cup/Submissions listing as of this edit is still showing to me as "Shearonik" instead of "Shearonink". Is that an issue from my end (purging cache maybe?) or from WP's? Thanks, Shearonink (talk) 16:44, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

Just a typo. Fixed. JAGUAR  17:45, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

Lol, yeah, it was just driving me crazy because I couldn't figure out how to fix it. I guess it was because the title of the Submissions page had me as nik rather than as ink... Thanks, Shearonink (talk) 18:14, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

Might I suggest a GA review?

I've nominated Tony Ahn, and would be thrilled if someone would like to review it. ScooterSponson (talk) 16:52, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

When will the new scores go up?

SinceI just jumped in to this fairly recently, I was wondering how often the Judges publish participants' GA Cup scores? I'm just supposed to keep reviewing even when the next deadline - December 29th - passes, right? Shearonink (talk) 22:35, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

Reviews will roll over into the next round, if you qualify, which, if you've completed even a few reviews, you probably will. No, we judges just haven't gotten around to reviewing yet. Sorry, I've been working on graduate school applications off-wiki, and on wiki with a featured article candidate that I nominated. I will try to get reviews done today.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 19:18, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

No worries, I just thought I maybe missed the memo. Thanks to the Judges for all their hard work, Shearonink (talk) 19:38, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

Note to all competitors, I'm going to check reviews that have been completed before December 29 at 23:59:59 (technically the end of Round 1). All reviews that are done after this timeframe or articles that are still being reviewed will be checked and points for the next round. MrWooHoo (T • C) 03:27, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

GAR for Alexandra Stan v. Marcel Prodan

Alexandra Stan v. Marcel Prodan, an article that you or your project may be interested in, has been nominated for an individual good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. BlueMoonset (talk) 16:04, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

Note that I post this notice here in part because Carbrera was just awarded GA Cup points by MrWooHoo for yesterday's GA review, even though the article currently has a "copy edit" tag on it (and did at the moment of its GA listing), which is mind-blowing to me. You can read my comments on the review page shortly after it was passed, and my reassessment today; better yet, read the prose of the article, which is not anywhere near GA standard. BlueMoonset (talk) 16:04, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

After I finish my last batch of GA Cup reviews that I haven't reviewed, I'll take a look at my decision to award points to Carbrera for this article. MrWooHoo (T • C) 16:07, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

@BlueMoonset: I've decided not to award points to Carbrera as there's obvious flaws within the article, thus showing that a 'complete review' was not done (per GA Cup rules). MrWooHoo (T • C) 16:24, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

Talk:Auberge d'Italie/GA1

I started this Review on January 3, added more content on January 5 & 9 and have had no response from the nominator even though a GA review notice was left by LegoBot on the nominator's talkpage on January 3rd. I also left a Talkback on January 11th and again on January 26th. The nominator has edited Wikipedia 3 times since I started my Review. Is it permitted for me to fail the article because the nominator has not responded? There are no deadlines around Wikipedia and I don't mind giving people time to fix things up or if they leave me a note on the Review page saying they're busy but they plan to get things fixed by [whenever], but this has been going on for almost a whole month... Shearonink (talk) 23:20, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

@Shearonink: Generally, the reviewer can fail the article after seven days if the article has been placed "On hold". But I see the review was never put "On hold" in the first place, so I'd first suggest doing that if I were you. Carbrera (talk) 23:24, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

Ok, thanks for pointing that out, had forgotten and you're absolutely right. Am just frustrated with the abandoned nominations I run into from time to time. So many hardworking editors wait and wait and wait for a GA Review... Shearonink (talk) 00:53, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

Hmmm. Well, it was so long ago...I went back and checked my Review page and realized I had put "On hold" on the Pass/Fail status for the overall article on January 9th. That didn't count? Do I need to put up some kind of formal notice on the Review or put (another) notice on the Nominator's talk page? Thanks, Shearonink (talk) 01:11, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

Shearonink, you posted a talkback on the nominator's page on January 11, and a follow-up on January 26. That's more than due diligence, and you should consider yourself free to close the nomination whenever you wish, since this is well past the standard one week for a formal hold. The advantage to formally putting it on hold (by changing "onreview" to "onhold" in the GA nominee template on the article talk page) is that the bot will automatically post a notice of the hold on the nominator's talk page, but the notification step was amply covered. The only other consideration that might come into play is how active the nominator has been lately versus earlier, given that there was a four month wait between nomination and the opening of the review. BlueMoonset (talk) 01:48, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

Ah, thanks for explaining that particular onreview/onhold parameter. I'll leave the Review open for a while longer - I hate to fail the article simply because the nominator might be busy or have real life issues going on at this time or whatever. Shearonink (talk) 02:01, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

Check my mistakes

Hi everyone! I'm currently going through a batch of many articles, and I'm sure I may have made a couple mistakes (mostly through whether someone gets 20/18 points and whether the nomination was in the pink box). If I do make a mistake, please let me know ASAP as I am about to update all GA Cup pages to Round 3. Cheers! MrWooHoo (T • C) 03:23, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

@MrWooHoo: I just recently closed another overdue pink-box nomination so my total should be 3, now. Chris Troutman (talk) 04:05, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

@Chris troutman: Your review was done after the Round 1 deadline of January 29 at 23:59:59, so if you do make it into Round 3, the review will be rolled over. MrWooHoo (T • C) 04:07, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

My mistake. I thought this round was through the 31st. Chris Troutman (talk) 04:08, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

If the deadline for this next round could be placed in bold - pinning it on both the Pools page and the main Submissions page would be very helpful. Or, lol, even better! a prominent countdown so everyone would know exactly how much time is left to get their GA stuff done. Thanks, Shearonink (talk) 04:38, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

@Shearonink: I've added a countdown to both the pools and submissions page. Also a note to all competitors: there was a mislink in the newsletter. "Here" should've linked to the pools page (which can be accessed through the tabs) instead of the article "here". MrWooHoo (T • C) 21:16, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

I need a ruling on a Review etc

@3family6, Figureskatingfan, Jaguar, and MrWooHoo: I started a Review on Auberge d'Italie. The article is well-written, has no major flaws, just needs a few (I think) minor) issues fixed. Can I fix those issues (per my Review) and then pass it to being a GA or must I Fail the article? I don't want to somehow run afoul of a COI, but - barring some minor edits - the article really does deserve to be a GA. The writer/nominator has only had a few edits since I started the Review. Please advise. Thanks, Shearonink (talk) 16:08, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

I don't understand your concern about CoI. I improve articles I'm reviewing all the time, often because it's just quicker or the nominator will bail on the process if I insist that they fix it themselves. (I have run across a few reviewers that had made almost no edits to the article before nominating it, so they have nothing invested in the article.) If they're minor edits I don't see the harm. I just try to ensure I don't hijack the article from a major contributor since their level of OWNership will be running pretty high at that point. Chris Troutman (talk) 16:17, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

Shearonink, per the instructions on reviewing a GAN, 4. In the case of a marginally non-compliant nomination, if the problems are easy to resolve, you may be bold and fix them yourself. So minor issues are certainly within the purview of the reviewer, who may (for example) prefer to fix punctuation or grammar or a confusing sentence rather than ask the nominator to do it. BlueMoonset (talk) 16:33, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

Ok, thanks everyone for your thoughts on this. If I were just doing the Reviews in the course of my daily Wikipedia-ing, I wouldn't be as concerned about a COI but since the GA Cup is involved I didn't somehow want to step over the line or cause any issues. I'm going to go ahead and improve this article, I hate to see orphaned articles not get their chance at being GA because the nominator or major contributor has gone MIA for a little bit of time. Cheers, Shearonink (talk) 22:06, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

Anyone around here super-familiar with image permissions on Commons?

There is a great photo. It is being used as one of the images on Water polo at the 1900 Summer Olympics. The photo dates from 1916 but the uploader - who only uploaded maybe 5 images a couple years ago - says in the Summary that it was their own work. Are there any image-experts out there that could take a look at File:Au front.jpg and give me their thoughts on whether not the image can remain in the article if it is passed to a GA status? The image could be removed but I hate to have that done if it is not necessary. Thanks, Shearonink (talk) 02:09, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

Well, it clearly isn't "own work", because that means that the photo was taken by the uploader, who I very much doubt was a centenarian. Pinging Crisco 1492 to ask if he can check this one for usability, Shearonink. BlueMoonset (talk) 08:19, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

Update: The nominator checked on the status of the file at User talk:Taketa#Fernand Feyaerts and the responses there was "The image is in the public domain because it was taken in 1916 by an unknown author. As can be seen at Commons:Commons:Copyright_rules_by_territory works by an unknown author become public domain in Belgium after 70 years, and works before 1923 are public domain in the USA." Even though the Source parameter still says "own work" I think the Licensing has now been cleared up satisfactorily as placing the image in the public domain. The original Commons editor uploaded 5 images back in 2012 and has not contributed since, it just looks to me like they made a mistake in filling out that parameter. I am satisfied that the permissions are as clear as they can be in this instance and should now be able to pass WP/Commons muster. Shearonink (talk) 08:39, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

• Sorry for the late reply; I'm currently on a trip to Sumatra, and these past few days have been a blur. For the US copyright status, it needs to be published before 1923, not created before 1923. If it were, for whatever reason, not published until 1926 (the cutoff date for the URAA is 1996) then the file would still be in copyright in the US.  — Chris Woodrich (talk) 23:55, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

Error on Pools page?...

At Round 3 header it says "Number of participants moving on to Round 3: Top user from each pool Wildcard: Top 2 of all remaining users". Is this right? Shouldn't it be "Number of participants moving on from Round 3: Top user from each pool, Wildcard: Top 2 of all remaining users"? I mean we're in Round 3 right now... Thanks, Shearonink (talk) 05:44, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

We are not going in to Round 3 from this Round (this is Round 3), the Final is next - so the template/code on the Pools page is in error:

It now says:

But it should say:

or maybe

I can't fix it (this is a Judges-only editing page). Shearonink (talk) 17:03, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

Done, thanks for spotting that.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 05:24, 20 February 2017 (UTC)== GA icon ==

Assassination of Iranian nuclear scientists has been promoted recently but the icon is not still added. --Mhhossein ^talk 12:00, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

One week more

@GA Cup judges: Can't we maybe get a one-week expansion for this round (like we did back in December)? I was very busy the last month and I only got the chance to review a few articles the last days. Now I have a whole week to myself. Best regards, Cartoon network freak (talk) 21:10, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

@Cartoon network freak: This seems to me to be a somewhat urgent matter... If you need to contact the judges en masse to get a ruling on this you could try Template:@GACup judges which is rendered as {{@GACup judges}}. Shearonink (talk) 03:01, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

Do we need one? The reason we extended things in December was because of a lack of participants.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 06:37, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

@3family6: We don't necessarily need one more week, but I just wanted to ask if this would be possible, as I didn't have any time to review articles the entire month. I just began doing so the last days and now the round is coming to an end; I have a one-week holiday now. There are other users with 1-3 reviews as well, and maybe this would be also a chance for them to review more articles. Best, Cartoon network freak (talk) 14:59, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

I don't think it is really fair to the other competitors. I'm sorry that you didn't have much time to review things this month.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 17:43, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

I've got to agree with 3family6 here. Unfortunately, we can't extend the deadline because that wouldn't be too fair to the rest of the competitors. MrWooHoo (T • C) 00:59, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

Question about scoring

3family6, Figureskatingfan, Jaguar, MrWooHoo: Round 3 hasn't been completely scored and I have been continuing on with my GA Reviews but just noticed something. The dates for Round 3 were Feb 1-26 and the Final Round dates are March 1-31. I want to confirm that the Reviews I have completed between Feb 26th & March 1st will still count toward my Final Round Total. Thanks, Shearonink (talk) 21:17, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

Yes, those will roll over. I apologize for the delay, I've been working on a graduate application this whole weekend, and just finished today. I have a long shift tomorrow, so hopefully the other judges can help.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 05:51, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

Talk:Liverpool Street station/GA1

This particular Review has been On hold since January 23, 2017. The Reviewer - User:Esquivalience - has not edited Wikipedia since January 28th. User:Ritchie333, this article's nominator, did ask for some assistance at WT:GAN but no one responded. Ritchie333 has asked me (at Talk:Marshlink Line/GA1) if I would be interested in Reviewing Liverpool Street station or completing Liverpool Street station's present GA Review. Am not sure what the procedure in cases like this but would like to help out the nominator - I mean, after all, they've been waiting for a response for over a month... Shearonink (talk) 19:52, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

UPDATE:

• @3family6, Figureskatingfan, Jaguar, and MrWooHoo: Since the review has apparently been abandoned, I have decided to take over Esquivalience's GA Review at Talk:Liverpool Street station/GA1. I don't know if any points will be assessed for my finishing the Review but thought the Judges should know. Please see related discussion at Talk:Marshlink Line/GA1. I will not add the Review to my Submissions Page unless I get the OK to do so from the Judges. Thanks, Shearonink (talk) 03:35, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

• From the rules listed at the scoring page: "You can take over an unfinished review, but you must have done the majority of the review to earn points for it. It must also be a complete review." If you end up not doing the majority of the review, I'll see if the other judges are okay giving you two points as if you did a reassessment.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 04:23, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

Whatever the Judges decide, I'm cool with that. It just didn't seem fair to me for the article to be thrown back in to the GA Noms all over again since so much work had already been done by the original Reviewer and by the nominator as well. What's funny is that I am basically now doing another GA Review because I used the GA Review Template I am most familiar with. Shearonink (talk) 04:31, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

Kiss Me Once

@3family6, Figureskatingfan, Jaguar, MrWooHoo, and BlueMoonset: I am doing a GA Review of this article but just noticed that (at least for me) the "good article nominee" notice isn't showing up at the top of the article page. Can anyone see what the problem is? Is it just that the Bot hasn't updated the article notice or is something missing from the article talk or the GA Review page or maybe do I need to purge the cache or...? Thanks, Shearonink (talk) 04:28, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

It's not just you. I don't know how that script works, it's something you can add to your user skin, so there's a miscommunication going on somewhere between the article and that script, but I don't know what's causing that.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 04:37, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

Finals round...

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

Oh, oops. It does say top 2 remaining for wild-card, but top finalist of remaining pools. I'm not sure what to do now, because I've already finalized things. I haven't heard from the other judges for a while, so I'm not sure what's going on.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 18:26, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

There were 10 editors in Round 3 and with this latest update there will be 8 in the Final... Ok, well I'll keep plowing on. Let me know if anything changes. Shearonink (talk) 18:48, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, I thought it looked odd, but I can't undo things at this point.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 20:54, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

The thing to do is fix the error. I'm sure everyone will understand if you do so. To have eight people in the final round makes no sense. BlueMoonset (talk) 07:14, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

Except at least one of the bottom three has already started competing.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 17:35, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

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

It's entirely my own mistake.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 18:59, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

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

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

I forgot about the submissions page, so that's now done (correctly, too, which apparently is a big deal for me). Also updated the main-page and the tabs. Is there anything else I missed? I give you permission to update anything that I didn't get. The newsletter needs to go out, too, but I want to contact the other judges for that to happen, and I haven't heard anything from them.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 05:35, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, 3family6. I've made a few minor edits here and there, mostly to the countdown infobox, and updated the Statistics page, which had been counting the total number of nominations rather than the total number of unreviewed nominations. BlueMoonset (talk) 03:12, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

@BlueMoonset: @3family6: I've got to say thanks to both BlueMoonset and 3family6 for doing the majority of the work this time around. Apologies for not being around, but school has really gotten to me much more than I expected. MrWooHoo (T • C) 04:41, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

It was graduate applications for me. I had one due on the 1st. That, and some loooong shifts at work this week.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 04:55, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

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