Wikipedia talk:The Core Contest/2013 archive

Request for Comment: Future runnings of the Core Contest

Right folks, we've done this twice now in the format listed on the front side of this page in 2012. I'm thinking maybe of running it again in February 2013 (everyone goes travelling or to the beach here in Australia in January - laptops are too tricky to use on the beach and do not like salt very much!). Anyway, I thought of getting some input into what and how we should do things - more of the same or something bigger? So twice we've had a 250 pound kitty to split between 6 editors, and I can try and get another microgrant, or maybe ask around and see if we can find something more lucrative.

Why I was quite happy with 250 and splitting it among several people was that I didn't want people to take it too seriously, and to spread some vouchers around several people as I felt a lot of great work was done by quite a few, and it was quite hard to rank at times. However, if folks want to make it more serious, we can try this too and go for a bigger amount. Whichever way, input is needed. Let me know how y'all reckon it'd go down the best. Also, is it better to concentrate and have two or three prizewinners or several?

Finally, is one month enough or do folks want to try a longer period - six weeks, eight weeks or even three months? Or shorter?

Anyway, I'll set up some sections below and folks can fill in as necessary: Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:28, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

NB: Please check previous discussion at Wikipedia_talk:The_Core_Contest/2012_archive#Repeat_Event.3F

Prize vouchers

• Comments on amount and how to distribute here. Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:28, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

Length of competition

• Comments on how long we should run it here. Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:28, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
  • I think one calendar month is good. Binksternet (talk) 05:49, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
• Disclaimer: I haven't entered before. I think a month works well, striking a good balance between those who do their work in relatively short spikes, and those who prefer to spread their editing relatively evenly over the month. —WFC— _{FL wishlist} 06:22, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
• I think two months works a little better than one month, gives some time for collaborative recruitment, improvements, research, peer review, and much, much more. — Cirt (talk) 03:35, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
• I think a month has worked quite well in the past, as long as the dates are introduced well in advance (at least a month, hopefully more). This way, people can decide on their article, recruit collaborators, get books from the library/ILL, etc. in advance, then put in a concentrated month (or even a couple of weeks, for some people) of work. Dana boomer (talk) 12:22, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Peer review for judges' comments

• Should each article receive an individual peer review from the group of Core Contest judges? At the last contest there were requests for feedback from judges so that observed article flaws or shortcomings could be addressed after the contest ended. I propose that the peer reviews would begin directly after the contest month. Peer reviews would have their own page, for example the Alps article would be reviewed at Wikipedia:Peer review/Alps/archive1. Finished peer reviews would then be listed in the Template:Article history on the article's talk page in the usual manner. Binksternet (talk) 05:49, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
• I think the answer to this question by Binksternet (talk · contribs), above, is most definitely yes. A peer review is an excellent step along the quality improvement process, ever the more so for core content articles. — Cirt (talk) 03:36, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

• Maybe the thing would be to open a Peer Review page when the editing is live - both run for one month, which is handy, and it gives a set point to give feedback. Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:28, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Yes, that sounds like a great idea. — Cirt (talk) 07:28, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Say 7 or 10 days before the close - in the early stages this might be wasteful, as editing is ongoing. Johnbod (talk) 16:44, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

If the peer reviews were initiated before the contest period closed then there could be complaints from the contestants who did not get their peer review as quickly as others, or whose peer review seems less thorough than others. I prefer the peer review starting after the contest ends. Binksternet (talk) 17:22, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Other comments

Feel free to add other subheadings - e.g. if someone wants to discuss scope of articles etc. Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:28, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

Results in tabular form

Would it be possible to put the results in the form of a table with column headings showing the various aspects considered by the judges and the weight given to each? This would help contestants to know where their articles did well, where they could have done better and what still needed improvement. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:25, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

I like this idea - funny I didn't think of it before....Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:25, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

I don't quite understand what would be involved with this suggestion. If it ends up pitting one article against another to determine the winner, I would not recommend it. Binksternet (talk) 15:29, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure how the Core Contest is judged at the moment but what seems to happen is that an entrant nominates their article some time before the end of the contest, one of the judges makes some initial comments and some time later, the winners are announced. I had imagined you had a table to compare the entries in your judging "chamber" even if you didn't display it for all to see. Comparing Bow and arrow and Cabbage is very difficult, but giving each one points for importance, referencing improvement, content improvement etc. is easier and you end up with a winner on points, an objective rather than a subjective winner. You might call this "pitting one article against another to determine the winner" but then, in my view, that is what a contest is. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 18:43, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

I helped judge the most recent round and I certainly pitted articles against each other, using my own calculus, to arrive at a very small group of potential winners. However, I would prefer the process not be made public. The calculus is already difficult as it is; trying to quantify the attributes or flaws would make it more so. Binksternet (talk) 20:48, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

I also think this is a great idea, it would help to see things in a visual tablular representative fashion. — Cirt (talk) 03:36, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

I think more detailed feedback from the judges would be good, but as in most beauty contests etc, while it may be good for the judges to have some standard marking scheme, individual or standardized, revealing all the workings may not be. Johnbod (talk) 15:59, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Level 1 Core articles

• Wikipedia:Vital articles/Level/1

Just out of curiosity, have any articles from Wikipedia:Vital articles/Level/1 been the subject of this endeavor before? If not, would anyone be interested in quality improvement for articles Technology, Science, or Culture? — Cirt (talk) 03:38, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

I entered language in the past competition. I have considered culture for my next endeavor.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 15:28, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

I'd be interested in science. Is this going to become an organized thing? Keilana|^{Parlez ici} 03:52, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Science would be a great Wikipedia:Vital articles/Level/1 article to start with! Anyone else interested in collaborating on this quality improvement effort??? — Cirt (talk) 06:20, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Culture is pretty weird - seems rather good content, but far too narrow. Much of it needs to be hived off, but good subject knowledge would be needed. Johnbod (talk) 15:13, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

I agree with this assessment by Johnbod (talk · contribs) about some of the inherent problematic nature of trying to improve the article Culture and the pruning that would be needed and shift in focus. However, if someone could do it, all the power to them and that would be most excellent for the site! :) — Cirt (talk) 07:28, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Updates...

Are we still planning on February 2013 for another running? I need to start preparing, if so... Ealdgyth - Talk 14:06, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

I haven't heard. If you're in the running it is going to be a fine race! Binksternet (talk) 15:25, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Working on it....Casliber (talk · contribs) 19:55, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Right - I am waiting on confirmation of a grant for the prizes. Once that is confirmed I think we might allow for three weeks to promote before running it again. Casliber (talk · contribs) 15:34, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Us WikiProject Mountain people are interested in doing some work on the core Mountain article. Myself, being a poor student, would love to do so in a gift-card type environment! If you guys are running this again, you've got some mountain folks interested. The Interior (Talk) 07:30, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Update as of March 2013

The issue holding up this is getting a grant for the prizes. I will keep everyone posted when that happens. Sorry folks. Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:48, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

If there's anything the rest of us can do to help, sing out. Binksternet (talk) 00:33, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Right, we now have approval for another microgrant for the same prizes as last two times. Question is when to run. I figure April 1st is a bit soon, so maybe April 15th for four weeks to give enough time for signpost etc.? Casliber (talk · contribs) 06:48, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

Works for me. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:22, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

Sure! Binksternet (talk) 15:35, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

Sounds good - not sure I'll do it this time. Johnbod (talk) 16:15, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

I can mention this in the Signpost that'll go out this week and next. Is there a signup page I should point to? Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 16:27, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

YEs please put it in the signpost - people don't "sign up" as such but rather submit entries...hang on.. entries submit here at Wikipedia:The Core Contest/Entries..Casliber (talk · contribs) 19:54, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

• "The Contest will be run over four weeks from midnight April 15 to midnight May 6 GMT" - This is a contradictory statement and needs clarification before advertising the contest in the Signpost etc. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:06, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

Yikes, I meant "The Contest will be run over four weeks from midnight April 15 to midnight May 13 GMT" Casliber (talk · contribs) 06:14, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

And it's added in this week's Signpost! I'll put a note in for next week as well. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 23:34, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

Starting time....

OK - it is about 10.30PM in the United Kingdom now, or 9.30 UTC. So this will start at 0.00 UTC in 2.5 hours from now. And will run for 4 weeks until 0.00 UTC on May 12 (i.e just before it turns May 13 on UTC).....good luck folks.Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:37, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

Nominating an article not on either list

Hi, I've an interest in an article not on either the Vital or Core list: Ovid's Metamorphoses, and presume this is the place to make my statement explaining why it should be considered. Simply, this poem is one of the most important and influential works of all time; Dr Andrew Zissos says that perhaps its only rival in terms of literary influence is the Old Testament or the Works of Shakespeare.[1] On European art, it has similarly been influential.[2] In a review of a recent book on the influence of the poem, the authors Christine de Pizan, Gower, Chaucer, Petrarch, Scève, Cervantes, Góngora, and Milton are listed as being influenced, but you could add Spenser and Shakespeare. A search for the influence of the poem on Google scholar yields 18,000 entries. … In conclusion, I think this should be allowed! Cheers, MasterOfHisOwnDomain (talk) 23:28, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

Sounds good - I need to clarify that the lists are guides only, and it is not uncommon for folks to come across and/or nominate very broad influential articles that are not on either list. At the end, we look across all nominations and try to take "core-ness" or "broad-ness" on board when we judge winners etc. Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:02, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Okay, I thought the guidelines were more strict than that and considered it best to argue my case now rather than risk it simply not being appropriate. But thanks for clarifying. MasterOfHisOwnDomain (talk) 09:15, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

It gets maybe 230K hits a year, which is a respectable figure, which is also relevant. Johnbod (talk) 10:21, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

When do we start the Peer Review process

We talked about performing a peer review for each article, but let's nail down the time. Suggestions were that the peer review would run during the contest, or during the last 1–1.5 weeks of the contest, or that they start directly following the contest. Binksternet (talk) 00:41, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

may as well start it now and let it run for the duration. Place a peer review and link to the page from the entries page. Good idea to formalise it. Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:51, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

You are not worried about the various peer reviews getting differing quality levels or amounts of attention? If one were worried about this the solution would be to start directly after the contest. Binksternet (talk) 14:47, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

My thinking is that Peer Review is suggestive, not proscriptive. Anyone is able to comment on the entries page anyway. I suppose we could add a note that to be fair we urge anyone commenting on one to comment on others that interest them? Article improvers are free to take on baord or ignore advice given anyway......? Hence any feedback is better than no feedback. Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:57, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Yes, good points. Binksternet (talk) 04:48, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

We can merely link at the Entries page or we can transclude the peer review. Thoughts? Binksternet (talk) 05:09, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

All there now. Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:30, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Closing old RFC on this page

I was called here from WP:AN to close an RFC about how the Core Contest would be run. I don't see any live controversy. If I missed something, please ping me on my talk page. Chutznik (talk) 03:34, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

I opened this up for some chummy discussion in December 2012 (see top of this page) but nothing controversial as such. We can either leave it open or close it - might be worth reviewing after this running of the contest. Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:00, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

How to enter

Could we have a nice clear link on this page to the Entries page. Or am I blind? Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:39, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Errr, from the front page or here? Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:31, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Well, I meant from here. No harm in multiple ways of getting there. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 12:47, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Ummm, ok. Let me think about it. Am open to suggestions. Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:16, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

I may have misunderstood

My initial understanding (I have not entered before) was of a broad editing drive based on the two standard lists. So I have made a second nomination, having moved on from Babbage to Huygens, in accordance with my normal feelings about how I should spend my time.

But on reading WP:TCC more carefully it seems to me that, if not explicitly said, the concept is that we nominate just one article. I may have got the wrong end of the stick. Charles Matthews (talk) 11:25, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

No, folks have entered two before - that's fine. It's just whether one has enough time to improve both.....Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:29, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

OK, thanks, must type faster. Charles Matthews (talk) 16:32, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Time of Results

What's happening about the results of the contest? Taking a look at the previous competition it was two months before the results were announced, so I realise this isn't unprecedented, but is the reviewing ongoing? MasterOfHisOwnDomain (talk) 09:30, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

Amazon vouchers

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

thankfully resolved now. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:41, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

---

The results of the 2013 Core Competition were announced on July 13th and around August 1st the prizewinners received an email from a Richard Symonds from Wikimedia UK asking for details of the email address to which vouchers should be sent. This we duly replied to but I, and at least some of the other winners, have not received their Amazon vouchers, nor any further communication from Wikimedia UK. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:34, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

Oh dear, this isn't any good. Let's ping Richard. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 09:52, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks Casliber. I for one never received my prize. -- Diannaa (talk) 14:23, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

Hi folks! My mistake. I've clearly missed some prizes off the list. I will go through it again tomorrow when I'm at work - I've just been so snowed under with the FDC bid! Do drop me an email at richard.symonds@wikimedia.org.uk if I've missed you off - but I'll go through this first thing tomorrow regardless. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (Message me) 18:11, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

Sent you an email, Richard. Cheers, MasterOfHisOwnDomain (talk) 20:40, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

I'm a little puzzled by the position here and the comment "I've clearly missed some prizes off the list". There were four winners in the March Core Competition and as I understand the position, none of them has received their voucher. Are we expected to contact someone to claim the vouchers? Is Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry the Wikipedia username of Richard Symonds? I have received no communication on the subject since the above post. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:16, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

Yes they are the same person. Richard....? Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 09:10, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

I have now received my voucher. -- Diannaa (talk) 15:34, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

Terrific/good to know - thanks for being patient and I hope the others jot a note here as well. cheers, Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 09:18, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

I have also received my voucher. MasterOfHisOwnDomain (talk) 10:38, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

It's good to know that some vouchers have been received but Chiswick Chap and I have not yet received ours. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:32, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

I'm pleased to report that, after some further prompting, Chiswick Chap and I have also received our vouchers. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 08:26, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

Hooray, we can mark this resolved.....Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:36, 25 October 2013 (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.

Next contest?

Is there a timeline for the beginning of the next contest? Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 18:22, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

Be nice to see the above resolved and then think about what to do next Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 09:12, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

Right, am thinking of running a de-stubbing contest at User:Casliber/Stub contest (in the vein of the Core Contest), just as a one off alternative and see how it goes - similar prizes. Discuss on talk page. Cheers, Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:33, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

Actually, some input from competitors would be appreciated - my gut feeling was that a competition such as this was a bit gruelling, so thought that something like a Stub Contest was a change of pace. However, I might be premature - can folks let me know whether we'd like to run a Core Contest competition sooner (say, 1-3 months) rather than later (4 months+)? How are folks feeling? Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 02:20, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

It's now over 5 mths since the last one ended, & I think you need to keep momentum up. One should be run before the holiday season, so in November. Ideally it should run 3-4 times a year, with the stub contest, which I also think is a great idea, in between. Johnbod (talk) 03:32, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

I would say the number of times per year would depend on how many times we can get WMUK and/or other groups to help us with prizes. While I like the idea of one before the holiday season, that's really only two weeks away, if you were to do a full-on month-long Core Contest. What if we did a week-long stub contest towards the end of November (giving a month for planning, securing prizes, etc.), and then planned another Core Contest for January? And maybe during the last couple months of this year tried to get a schedule, prizes, etc. laid out for a full schedule next year, so that they weren't being planned on an individual basis? Cas, I know all of the planning and stuff for this is being put on you - is there anything we could do to help? Are there bottlenecks at any point in the planning system that other volunteers could help with to make things run more smoothly? Dana boomer (talk) 12:38, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

That would be an alternative. With only 9 entries last time, I think the number of prizes could be cut if necessary. Funding them should not be an issue imo. Johnbod (talk) 13:17, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for offering Dana - It hasn't actually been too onerous really - if anyone wants to be a judge that would be great. (share the love around and all) I did think with a slight drop off in core contest entries that a break was prudent, but I can see Johnbod's point above. I did think a stub contest might attract a whole lot more people and then whet their thirst for another run of core contest....Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 02:57, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

Agree with Dana that setting up in the new year would be best, giving some time to organise and, perhaps more importantly, to raise awareness of the contest; I think that it's not really that the contest is too demanding (I found the WikiCup far more onerous, in being so protracted), but that simply not enough people know about it. That is only my view though. I hope it goes ahead again, as I really think it's a worthwhile effort. MasterOfHisOwnDomain (talk) 15:37, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

I am open to suggestions on where else to publicise it apart from the signpost, village pump, WT:FAC, GA board....? Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:35, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

You could also post at the Wikipedia:Reward board and send an invitation out to previous participants. -- Diannaa (talk)

Yeah, good ideas both. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 04:54, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

The WikiCup might also be a good place to post at; in fact, there would certainly be some synergy (though I hate that word) between contributing to this and that competition. MasterOfHisOwnDomain (talk) 11:43, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

Okay - I have put up requests for microgrants for both a fourth running of this contest and the stub contest to WMUK, so we can plan advertising once (if?) they are approved....cheers, Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 01:58, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

Congrats to ____ and ____ for their success in the 2013 Core Contest, a competition where editors work to improve Wikipedia's most important articles

This competition is unfortunately very behind the scenes-y when it comes to Wikipedia. It took me a great many years before I discovered it even existed, and thoguh I was keeping up with the nominated articles and the reviewing process, I had no idea it was over and that winners had been crowned. This contest is somthing that realy highlights Wiki-work being done, and rewards for improvement. I think a message about this (and things like it) should appear on the main page in some form. This is some wiki-news worth sharing. Why not have wiki-bias information on the Wikipedia main page? :)--Coin945 (talk) 15:06, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

I think advertising it more is good and have been somewhat disorganised at times in the past. The thing would have to be a specific proposal and then voted upon. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 19:18, 19 October 2013 (UTC)