Wikipedia talk:WikiCup/Archive/2016/3

2016 WikiCup Results

Newsletter in preparation, will be posted by the end of the day.--Godot13 (talk) 07:32, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

Bah, just missed my featured article! Ah well, well played everyone. Worm^TT(talk) 14:15, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

Looking forward to reading the final results. Well done to all, now where are the finalists' WP T-shirts? :) The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 16:47, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

Looking forward to reading. Thanks to all who participated and congrats to finalists! ---Another Believer _(Talk) 17:09, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

2016 WikiCup Results are in

The final round of the 2016 WikiCup is over. Congratulations to the 2016 WikiCup top three finalists:

• First Place - Cas Liber (submissions)
• Second Place - MPJ-DK (submissions)
• Third Place - Adam Cuerden (submissions)

In addition to recognizing the achievements of the top finishers and everyone who worked hard to make it to the final round, we also want to recognize those participants who were most productive in each of the WikiCup scoring categories.

• Featured Article – Cas Liber (actually a three-way tie with themselves for two FAs in each of R2, R3, and R5).
• Good Article – MPJ-DK had 14 GAs promoted in R3.
• Featured List – Calvin999 (submissions) produced 2 FLs in R2
• Featured Pictures – Adam Cuerden restored 18 images to FP status in R4.
• Featured Portal – SSTflyer (submissions) produced the only FPO of the Cup in R2.
• Featured Topic – Cyclonebiskit (submissions) and Calvin were each responsible for one FT in R3 and R2, respectively.
• Good Topic – MPJ-DK created a GT with 9 GAs in R5.
• Did You Know – MPJ-DK put 53 DYKs on the main page in R4.
• In The News – Dharmadhyaksha (submissions) and Muboshgu (submissions), each with 5 ITN, both in R4.
• Good Article Review – MPJ-DK completed 61 GARs in R2.

Over the course of the 2016 WikiCup the following content was added to Wikipedia (only reporting on fixed value categories): 17 Featured Articles, 183 Good Articles, 8 Featured Lists, 87 Featured Pictures, 40 In The News, and 321 Good Article Reviews. Thank you to all the competitors for your hard work and what you have done to improve Wikipedia.

We will open up a discussion for comments on process and scoring in a few days. The 2017 WikiCup is just around the corner! Many thanks from all the judges. --Godot13 (talk) 23:27, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

Signpost report

The draft is at Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Newsroom/Wikicup. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 04:37, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

And we're published. Bet that's the fastest competition-close-to-Signpost-article the Wikicup has had. Thanks to Godot13 for his timely report. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 17:05, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

Also, a big thank you to Pete, the Signpost editor. I'm pretty sure he held back publication a day or so just to let us get our report in now, instead of in a fortnight. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 17:12, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

I'll take the thanks, but if I'm gonna be real honest, it was one of a few moving parts that delayed publication. Glad we were able to get it out in a timely fashion -- your good work prior to submission was a big factor! -Pete (talk) 21:20, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

Featured picture scoring

Well, here's my thoughts on FP scoring:

1. it feels like it was way too low for the effort needed, but... 2. FPs are probably more gameable than most.

Stating that any type of content should NOT be a valid method to win is not on. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 05:37, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

I try to nominate FPs as near to the time of creation as possible. My scores have been fairly consistent around 600 this whole competition. But, of course, the first three rounds or so are not very competitive, so there's a potential to hold things back. I suppose that's possible (and likely done) with other content, but the strict timescale of FP nominations makes this more practical.

Now, if an FPC fails to get a quorum - which happens at some periods when participation dips - then there's a need to delay it.

I suppose the point is: We may need some rules against gaming the system, but at the same time, this has never actually happened. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 19:13, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

The thing is that; while the time to improve the content to a high standard might be similar to FAs, FLs and GAs; FPCs take a maximum of ten days while FACs regularly take 2-3+ months, so do FLCs. There is currently an unreviewed GAN that was nominated 203 days ago (the longest GAN with a review in action is 209 days old). That is over six months ago. There are 325 GANs that are older than 30 days. This all means that FPs can be produced a lot quicker than GAs, FLs and FAs. Therefore, I don't think there is a need to increase FP points. — Yellow Dingo (talk) 23:36, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

Yes, but in the last round, for example, a single FA was worth around 300 points, and shared between two different people, for instance. FA's are so valuable with bonuses that, even with the speed of FPs, there's really no way to compete. I want a situation where I feel I can compete, but will really have to work hard, not the standard situation, which, frankly, for the last three years has been "There's really no point competing in the last round, it's unwinnable." There's no point having a competition meant to encourage work, then make it clear that no amount of work can possibly do anything to improve your chances. A slight increase - 35 to 40 points - and there's a chance to win, which is a definite motivator for content creation. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 00:29, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

I'm confused - who is forcing you to limit yourself to one type of content for this contest?  MPJ-DK  02:26, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

• Looking at this I'm feeling hard pressed to support a change for FP specifically, especially with the argument "I cannot compete with 200 points for a FA". Considering the deciding factor between first and second this year was more or less down to bonus points - if I had been more strategic in my article choices it would actually be possible for me to compete even though I had primarily GA points. We all got issues buddy, trying to lobby for a special advantage seems like poor sportsmanship.  MPJ-DK  17:18, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

I don't see how it's alright every year to have discussions of why FPs have been devalued - a three-year theme ending in the situation we have now - but never to increase it. FPs are the only major type of Featured cContent in the competition completely without bonus points. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 03:30, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

Adam, like you say, we have this conversation over and over again. Each year, you lead a charge to get FP points increased, and, each year, it leads to upset. By upset, I mostly mean your lashing out and/or your (c)overt attempts to derail or shut down the WikiCup. While there's sometimes change one way or another, you aren't happy. I don't think you really have a right to complain about the lack of change when the overwhelming feeling of other participants in these discussions seems to be that we don't need it; or, at least, we don't need anything close to the kinds of changes you're proposing. As you might be able to guess, I don't have a lot of sympathy any more, even though I once did. (And can I also point out that our de facto lead judge is himself a FP specialist.) That said, here's the kind of move I would support: an increase in the number of FP points (say, to 50) for photographers, illustrators, etc., and a decrease (say, to 25) for editors, restorers, scanners, "secure-the-release"rs, etc. I don't suppose that's the kind of change you're imagining, though I think it might get some support. I think the proposal would need some fine-tuning, but I don't really have the time or emotional energy to get dragged into all this again. Josh Milburn (talk) 13:42, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

• Sorry I'm a bit late to the discussion. Please give me a day (or less) to get up to speed. The past 48 hours here in New York have been interesting...--Godot13 (talk) 05:00, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

• Featured lists have 45 points each and a FL nomination usually takes 2 months to be approved/archived. Additionally, one nominator is not allowed to put more than one nomination for review unless the previous nomination has "gained substantial support and reviewers' concerns have been substantially addressed". So I have been able to churn out only 1 FL per round. Feature Pictures seem to have 2 weeks of turn-around time with no limitation on per-nominator-entry and still are getting 30 points. That's more in proportion actually. However I agree with @J Milburn: on the point that maybe photographs and illustrations can be given more points; not necessarily what he proposed. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 11:37, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

Please try a restoration before claiming they're easy, thank you. There's several orders of magnitude more people able to take a featured photograph than who can do a featured restoration, and you really shouldn't be denigrating rare skills if you want Wikipedia to keep benefiting from them.

This is the problem with Wikicup discussions on FPs: I have to have my work attacked by people who have never once tried to do that type of work, but are able to use their psychic powers to pull opinions on how difficult it is out of their ass. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 14:53, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

This thread does not contain any attacks on your work or any claims that restorations are easy. Josh Milburn (talk) 23:01, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

• It is difficult for me to understand the statement above that there is "no way to compete" using FPs, or that the last round is "unwinnable" if one does. In 2014 FPs were valued at 35 points. Prior to the final round and particularly after winning, the FP valuation debate was fairly ugly. In 2015 FPs were reduced to 20 points with the possibility for a modest bonus score. My average score per FP in the final round (including bonus) was roughly 26 points. I did not subscribe to the notion that "no amount of work can possibly do anything to improve your chances" and managed to narrowly win again. I have acknowledged in the past that I was extremely fortunate to have access to objects in a major institutional collection. Despite that, it is difficult for me to support making any kind of FP value change because the value was increased going into this year’s cup.
  
  The idea of different values within FPs has been brought up before and in theory is not bad. However given my experience with having to maintain a supplementary bonus score table for myself in last year’s WikiCup, I don’t think creating sub-categories within FP is a great idea.
  
  Everything I have expressed above is my own opinion and has not yet been discussed with the other judges, so they may choose to express their own or differing opinions on the matter.
  
  As a final note, I do want to add that comments about how FPs only take 10 days or two weeks are not taking into consideration the time and work that goes into the actual image restoration itself. I’m not trying to create another debate, just pointing out something that those who are not intimately familiar with restoration work may unintentionally overlook. In my own experience restoration has involved more work than a photograph.
  
  If there are other areas in WikiCup scoring that need discussion (and if this one requires more discussion), please let me know. I will take suggestions and create a discussion page that will open on or before December 1st. I’ll also get next year’s signup sheet going.--Godot13 (talk) 08:18, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

Cumulative scoring in all rounds

Why don't the scores of a round get carried forward to another round? I can't imagine any reason to not do so. Has this been already discussed before? §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 09:46, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

Yes, it's been discussed. From memory, which may be inaccurate: the fear was that people would very quickly be scored out. By the end of round 2, some people's scores would be utterly unattainable, and people would stop taking part, and the final would likely be basically decided before it began. It wouldn't on this picture, make for a good competition. There was some discussion years ago about the possibility of a partial score carry-over, like a kind of seeding. This would mean that those who did well in round 1 would have a better chance in round 2 and so on (perhaps with the exception of the final round). Josh Milburn (talk) 13:46, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

I get it now. Thanks for the reply. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 03:27, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

2017 Cup

Am I right to assume that the next WikiCup will start 1 January? If so, it might be good to feature this information on the project page. Also, so far the tense on the project page is off: The 2016 WikiCup begins on January 1; signups closed on February 5. Cheers! Zwerg Nase (talk) 08:34, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

You are correct. Thanks.--Godot13 (talk) 00:36, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

You can sign up for the 2017 Cup here. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 11:37, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

About Prizes

I have been wondering about the prizes awarded to the winners of WikiCup. Could someone indicate me where I can read about the prizes, what they are, who gets what, etc.? Thanks! Iry-Hor (talk) 11:50, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

No prizes have been awarded yet this year, though they are coming. For the last few years, we have given "prizes" (just barnstars- nothing material!) for: first, second, third and fourth overall; final eight but not first, second, third or fourth; the most points in a single round from any given content type (i.e., the "FA Prize" and the "ITN Prize"); and sometimes a few others, such as a "best newcomer"-type prize. The results from last year, for example, are listed here. We should really compile all the winners of various prizes somewhere! Josh Milburn (talk) 14:25, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

Thanks that's what I was looking for! Iry-Hor (talk) 20:01, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

Double scoring

In 2016 Wikicup I had pointed out my own case of how I am benefitting by taking points for same work twice. I was able to take points for RD as well as DYK for same article of Mike Agostini and the community had allowed it then; maybe because we were half-way in the competition already and no such “RD” concept existed previously or was not imagined by anyone earlier. I would like to propose change in scoring system for this and for simplicity we can add a clause somewhere that maximum score of the two would only be considered in such cases. Pinging current and past judges as we are only 15 days short of the new round and it would be better to discuss and modify rules before the cup begins for this year. @Figureskatingfan, Godot13, Cwmhiraeth, and Sturmvogel 66: §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 08:28, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

Could you explain what you mean by "RD"? Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:21, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

Recent deaths. It's am ITN subcategory, I believe. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 09:41, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

I seem to recall it was at one point considered that RD was not eligible for ITN points on the grounds that all you needed to do was nominate and clean up, then somewhere it got changed back. i would certainly suggest something along the lines of "if an article has been in the RD section of ITN, then it is not eligible for future DYK points if worked on by the same editor within X number of days" (that way we can separate it to ensure that work is done to earn both types of points, I suggest 15 days so it is outside of the DYK limit so any work done for RD doesn't count towards DYK expansion) or you could even just go back to "RDs are not eligible for WikiCup points". The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 10:26, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

Given DYK, for all its faults, does check very stringently for minimum measures of article quality, I'd say DYK should always be the option we encourage.

I think it's valid enough to encourage ITN and RD edits, in order to encourage keeping things timely and up-to-date, but are they really as rigorous and valuable as DYK - and, given the current points, specifically, the longer and more rewarded DYKs? If not, they're probably far overvalued. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 10:49, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

I think this would be an extremely rare occurrence and my view is that each case should be viewed on its merits. In general, to score points in the WikiCup you need to have substantially worked on the article during the course of the contest, and most RDs would probably not qualify for DYK. You can of course claim for a DYK, take the article to GA and claim for it again, and on to FA and another claim if you want. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 12:07, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

I agree that being able to claim for RD and DYK would be a pretty rare occurrence. It could surely never be a game-changer, because of small amounts of points involved, and, frankly, if someone is prepared to put in the work on a timely article to take it to both places, I've personally got no objection to people being able to claim twice. Josh Milburn (talk) 13:50, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

Dharmadhyaksha- Just for the record, although archived two days ago, on 17 November (in an effort to avoid last minute scoring discussions) suggestions for scoring issues/discussions were solicited. The judges will discuss.--Godot13 (talk) 21:04, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

New System

Just something I thought I'd bring to the attention of the judges: [[1]]. It seems to be a new WMFLabs tool that attributes points to articles in editathons. I've no idea how customisable it is, or what the judging end looks like at all (I submitted four articles using the system during Asian Month). But thought you might want to be aware to explore (probably more for the 2018 cup than anything). Miyagawa (talk) 14:13, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

Thank you. We will have to look into this. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 14:06, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

What will be new for the 2017 edition in terms of rules? Nergaal (talk) 12:25, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

There are no proposals to change the rules at the moment, other than to update the years mentioned as cut-off points for bonuses as appropriate (2010-->2011 etc.). If you have any proposals for changes in the way entries are scored, you could bring them up on this page. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 14:06, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

WikiCup December newsletter: WikiCup 2017

On 1 January 2017, WikiCup 2017 (the 10th Annual WikiCup) will begin. This year we are trying something a little different – monetary prizes.

For the WC2017 the prizes will be as follows (amounts are based in US$ and will be awarded in the form of an online Amazon gift certificate):

• First place – $200
• Second & Third place – $50 each
• Category prizes – $25 per category (which will be limited to FA, FL, FP, GA, and DYK for 2017). Winning a category prize does not require making it to the final round.

Note: Monetary prizes are a one-year experiment for 2017 and may or may not be continued in the future. In order to be eligible to receive any of the prizes above, the competing Wikipedia account must have a valid/active email address.

After two years as a WikiCup judge, Figureskatingfan is stepping down. We thank her for her contributions as a WikiCup judge. We are pleased to announce that our newest judge is two-time WikiCup champion Cwmhiraeth.

The judges for the 2017 WikiCup are Godot13 (talk · contribs · email), Cwmhiraeth (talk · contribs), and Sturmvogel 66 (talk · contribs · email).

Signups are open now and will remain open until 5 February 2017. You can sign up here.

If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send.Godot13 (talk) 20:03, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

So, in the interest of transparency, I have a couple of questions regarding the monetary prizes:

• Who is funding these prizes?
• Does participating in the WikiCup now require a paid editing disclosure, per WP:PAID?

Thanks for your attention. –Grondemar 21:06, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

I will leave the first question to the judges, but I will answer the second. Short answer: No. Longer answer: There have been numerous other situations in which gift voucher rewards were offered for on-Wikipedia competitions, and none of these have required a disclosure. While I'm certainly not a lawyer, I'm not convinced that this is the kind of thing that the Foundation is talking about. Someone could contact the appropriate Foundation employee/representative to confirm if necessary. Josh Milburn (talk) 23:49, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

I'd be surprised if the prizes weren't coming either from the Foundation itself or from one of the Chapters. Miyagawa (talk) 14:08, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

The prizes are being funded by an anonymous Wikipedian who has made a commitment for 2017.--Godot13 (talk) 21:15, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

Well I think I can say thank you to the Wikipedian for his or her generosity, on behalf of everyone involved. Miyagawa (talk) 16:28, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

+1 - Jarry1250 ^{[Vacation needed]} 13:44, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

2016 summary

Haven't followed this edition, but I think the overall stats are worthwhile being seen by everybody here: FA: 34, PGA: 183, FL: 8, FP: 87, FPO: 1, FT: 2, GT: 23, DYK: 887, ITN: 40, GAR: 321. To me it looks like there are plenty of GA/DYK/GAR entries from wikicup; a good-but-could-be-more number of FA/GT/ITN; and a meager maybe-encourage-more FL/FPO/FT entries. Everything else, like who won are nice details, but the whole point of the Cup should be about these bottom-line numbers and what can everybody (not just judges do) to increase them to the best possible level. Nergaal (talk) 13:29, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

I've heard ITN is a somewhat problematic process. Also, I think you're somewhat pooh-poohing a rather impressive achievement: The FAs for this cup alone represent 0.7% of all FAs on Wikipedia. That's really quite high for a small number of people to have achieved. Some of the others are harder to adjudicate, since some of the GAs will have become FAs, but it's still around 0.7% of GAs. We also have 1.4% of all FPs, which is very good.

Even some of the smaller numbers are surprisingly impressive: There's very few FPOs and FTs so we still have about 0.58%. and 1.38%, respectively. We have 13.56% of all GTs, which is ridiculous.

The one we're failing on is FLs, with about .02% - I think this is due to issues with the FL project this year, which have slowed down promotion compared to previous. Awarding points for FL reviews might be a good solution.

I don't think there's any hard numbers for DYK, ITN, or GAR. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 14:12, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

• • I am glad I am not the only one who thought FL was more drawn out this year than before. It has never taken me this long to get FLs through in the past.  MPJ-DK  17:01, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
    • I think we'd be wise to give FL a boost. The WikiCup is meant to drive content creation, after all. Adding points for FL reviews would be a good step towards this, although it might be a systemic issue where the directors simply aren't closing things to appropriate timescales; we should probably figure out which. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 17:30, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
      • Two quick comments: First, on interpreting these numbers. Occasionally, "2 [e.g.] FAs in the WikiCup" translates to only one FA on Wikipedia (unless Nergaal has taken this into account). Cortinarius violaceus was claimed by both Casliber and I, for example. (Also, how are the topics being counted? I read Nergaal as saying "23 articles in good topics", but I read Adam as saying "23 good topics". Second, on review scores. This has been strongly resisted at FAC and didn't really work out at PR, though it does seem to have worked well at GAC. I'd be cautious about introducing it at FLC; any attempt should be done in conjunction with the FLC people (at least some of whom are not fans of the WikiCup). Josh Milburn (talk) 23:16, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
        • There was not 23 individual GTs, there was a couple of topics with a total of 23 articles if memory serves me. As for FL, I just wrote it off as people not being interested in pro wrestling (I totally get that), but maybe not?  MPJ-DK  23:26, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
          • I think that Good Article Reviews (GAR) have been helpful for the WikiCup but more importantly for the GAC process and Wikipedia in general. They have not always been problem free (poor/sloppy reviews) and require some level of individual review. This year several GARs were denied on review by the judges. I would be wary of having an additional process for FL, particularly (per Josh Milburn above) without FL delegate input. I don’t see a solid process being in place for 2017 but if discussions are productive, something could be pursued for 2018.--Godot13 (talk) 21:07, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
            • The way I always thought it should work (although I hold my hands up as this suggestion has been shot down in previous years) was that if you do nominate at GAN, then you do a review as part of the qualification to submit it for the cup. This same idea could equally apply at FL/FA if needed (heck, even FP, but they've got such a strong community that it isn't needed there). Miyagawa (talk) 14:33, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
              • • I'd support that. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 17:21, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
                • Personally, I like the idea. At the end of each round, the number of GAs claimed for would be reduced if they exceeded the number of GARs completed. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 20:27, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
                  • I confess to being nervous about the idea for three reasons: First, there are people who are capable of writing GAs (with a little help) but lack the skills to competently review articles. Second, I fear that it will lead to slapdash reviews; forcing people to do something they don't want to is a sure way to get something done badly. Third, I feel that part of the success of the WikiCup has been down to people being able to work on what they like (other competitions, in which people were told what to work on, quickly failed). If others feel it should be in place, perhaps we could have a little wiggle room; i.e., at least half as many GARs as they have GAs, rounding down? (That also has the advantage of letting people have one "free" GA per round.) Josh Milburn (talk) 20:52, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
                    • I think Josh's suggestion is a good one. Perhaps have as many as two or three freebies a month - that way the people who really hit up GAN with multiple nominations are the ones who do the reviews, while less experienced editors who are doing thier first GAs don't feel pressured into conducting reviews in a process they are unfamiliar with. Miyagawa (talk) 15:06, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
                      • I certainly agree that more experienced editors (like those of us in this discussion) should be taking on at least our fair share of reviews; setting "quotas" would be one way to do this. There's also the issue of setting up a rule that isn't too complicated; the less-involved WikiCup participants are unlikely to study the rules, if they look at them at all. Josh Milburn (talk) 15:10, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
                        • OR we could just up the number of points we offer per GAC. Josh Milburn (talk) 15:12, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
                          • Given the GA Cup, I think that we'd best not screw over our uniqueness compared to them. Too many points and it begins to devalue other work. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 16:11, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

Questions

Dear organizers of this nice idea to improve the content on Wikipedia. I have some questions which may have been answered in earlier years. I checked the FAQ and several other pages but didn't delve into the Talk page archives of former years, so forgive me the redundance.

• As I understand it, the points are awarded for promoted articles, images, portals and lists of FA/GA status based on submitted content added between January 1st and end of February 2017 (Round 1); does this mean that the content added to score points needs to be written within that timespan or can that be content added/new articles created earlier (e.g. in 2016), but only promoted to the FA/GA status during the Jan-Feb timespan?
• Currently the GA/FA process takes long with a backlist of 6 months+. Do WikiCup submissions get priority in this process? And how many reviewers will there be available? If there are 65+ participants now, and that will be let's say 80 in 2 days time, and everyone adds a GA/FA, will there be enough time to review all those 80 submissions?
• What does count as a new submission? Article/Portal/List etc. content in the main space (prepared before offline or in sandboxes/drafts) or any data submitted to Wikipedia (including sandboxes and drafts) need to be between Jan 1 and Feb end?
• For Featured Pictures; do they need to be taken/uploaded/drawn between Jan 1 and Feb end, or is that the timespan for the promotion to Featured Picture?

Many thanks and I look forward to the Cup! Cheers, Tisquesusa (talk) 20:07, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

A few answers to your questions. To score points in the WikiCup, significant work needs to have been done during the course of the competition. Generally FAs, GAs need to have been worked on and nominated during 2017, and DYK creation, expansion and nomination done during 2017. What constitutes significant work is decided by the judges. As you point out, there is a backlog of nominations at GAN and the FAC process takes several weeks, nevertheless you will find people begin to score in these categories over the next few weeks, and anything not completed by the end of a round can carry over into the next. There is no priority for WikiCup entries at GAN and FAC but contestants can always help by reviewing the nominations of other contestants.

"New" is generally when the article first appears in mainspace, even if it has existed in someone's sandbox for some time. It is unclear whether featured pictures need to have been created during the course of the contest but I believe it has been stated in the past that featured pictures should not be exempt from the general requirements of newness. In general, the date that an article/image is promoted is the relevant date, and the date that the DYK appears on the main page. Hope that helps. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 21:22, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

for GA, FA, FL the article can exist prior to Jan 1, 2017 in article space, but you have to put in significant work on it in 2017 and it has to be nominated in 2017, not December 2016 or prior. Let's say I wanted to work on Ultraman (wrestler), that article already exists but I can expand that in 2017 and nominate it afterwards for GA or FA. As for priority in reviews - nope, but there is a place on the talk page to post our GANs and FACs/FLCs so that other Wikicup competitors can review them (remember GA reviews give points too). Last year that seemed to work out okay for everyone, especially in the first couple of rounds. Hope that helps clarify? It really is a great concept, I got more GAs and FAs reviewed last year than any other year I've been active at Wikipedia.  MPJ-DK  21:53, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the quick (!) and clear answers. Indeed, I saw the GAN reviews also score points, which I think is very good as it is quite frustrating seeing so much good work is being done and has been done to write the articles now in the queue, but then have them for several months "on hold".

One other question; does the "significant work" in the process of GAN count for the scoring? So let's say I put a B-class article written in 2016 to B up for GAN review, the result of the review is "do 10 kbytes of extra work/content", does that count as significant work during the timespan for scoring, or does the "significant work" needs to be done before putting it up for review but during the Jan-Feb timespan? Thanks again, already a Happy New Year to all. Tisquesusa (talk) 22:09, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

I have seen people nominate for GA and then do "significant work" during the review process amd yes I believe 10 KB of work would probably qualify - the trap is that maybe there isn't that much work as a result of a GA. I've had GAs pass with just a few adjustments, not "significant", I would not gamble on it. Look at it this way, if you have an article you want to nominate for GA, do some additioal work on it, copy editing, source checking and possibly archiving etc. before nominating - the only way to be sure you'll get enough "significant work" in is to have it done prior to the review.  MPJ-DK  22:14, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

Good luck 2017 competitors

I just want to wish all my fellow 2017 competitors good luck with the upcoming competition. 2016 was my first WikiCup and I did not know how much fun it would be and the fact that it allowed my work to get more attention than usual from others, thus improving the quality of not only my work but Wikipedia in general. And remember, keep it positive and fun, it's a marathon, not a sprint.  MPJ-DK  15:04, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

Now that's it finally 2017 on the West Coast, I'd like to also wish everyone good luck. This is my first time participating and I hope to motivate myself into finishing some stale drafts and sandboxes. SounderBruce 08:27, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

Well its really a contest of skill rather than luck. The main part luck plays is in the timing aspects of reviewers picking up and concluding GA reviews, the timing of FAC closures and the progress of DYK nominations. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 11:27, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

Yes but who wishes everyone "Good Skills" ;-)  MPJ-DK  14:35, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

GA reviews

If a GA review was started prior to 1/1/17, and finished after 1/1/17, does it count for the contest? Kees08 (talk) 23:24, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

• No, review has to be started in 2017/  MPJ-DK  00:13, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

Additional but related question from a first-time participant: can GA (and other content) points be claimed on an article that was submitted for nomination last year? I've got a few sitting in the backlog for months that will need reviews well before anything submitted for the cup. SounderBruce 01:33, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

While I am not a judge I do believe they have to be nominated in 2017.  MPJ-DK  01:51, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

@SounderBruce: If you have nominated the article last year, it would mean that substantial work on it was done last year and hence it would not qualify. In a rarest of rare case if you happen to substantially edit that article again in 2017, for whatsoever reason, then it might qualify. Better to take it case by case with judges if such situation comes up. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 05:14, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

Bot Speed

Just wondering - how often does the bot update the scores? Thanks. Tube Geek 77 (talk) 22:10, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

It checks for updates every hour (at 13 minutes past), though it is possible for me, or a judge, to trigger additional updates. HTH, - Jarry1250 ^{[Vacation needed]} 18:50, 3 January 2017 (UTC)