Wikipedia talk:WikiCup/Archive/2018/1

Declaring Participation

I have recently taken the time to make a template here which can be substituted to inform any other participants that you have taken up the review of their FA, GA, DYK etc. All you need to do is to add {{subst:User:Force Radical/Wikicup|type=<!--type of review defaults to "discussion"-->|sign=yes<!--(if needed use yes or else omit the parameter altogether)-->}} to the page where you want it displayed.

Ex: For {{subst:User:Force Radical/Wikicup|type=FA|sign=yes}}, this template gives:
Note: — In the interests of transparency, I would like to disclose that this FA may be used to increase my points for the ongoing Wikicup competition.  — Force Radical∞ ( Talk ⋯ Contribs ) 10:57, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

Ex: For {{subst:User:Force Radical/Wikicup|type=FA}}, this template gives:
Note: — In the interests of transparency, I would like to disclose that this FA may be used to increase my points for the ongoing Wikicup competition.

Hope this will be of some help and will be adopted by the other Wikicup participants. I am open to changing the wordings of the original template to suit what eeryone wants — Force Radical∞ ( Talk ⋯ Contribs ) 10:57, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

Shouldn't the word "review" be added? Zwerg Nase (talk) 12:00, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

Zwerg Nase-You can use type=FA review, (also type=GA review or type=DYK review which ever is needed) for that — Force Radical∞ ( Talk ⋯ Contribs ) 12:32, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

I see. Good! I'll use it, thank you! Zwerg Nase (talk) 13:01, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

GA review

What is the rules with regards to asking another participant to review(Not necessarily pass) ones GAN's which will later submitted as part of the contest ? Also is it mandatory for a review to be from the list at WP:Wikicup/Reviews Needed to get the four points ?  — Force Radical∞ ( Talk ⋯ Contribs ) 16:51, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

There is no rule that prevents a contestant from asking someone to review their GA, but the review needs to be just as thorough as any other review. The judges scrutinise each review submitted, and will remove the points if the review is not up to scratch. Similarly, we look at the newly promoted GA to make sure it has been properly promoted.

With regard to your second point, you can claim points for reviewing any GA, not just those on the list. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 18:56, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

Be sure to list your noms in the WikiCup GAN reviews needed section. I'll try to review one nom by each contestant listed there this round.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 19:33, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

If, I think, that they're something that I feel competent to review. Music isn't one of my strong points and there's a whole lot of music noms in the reviews needed section, so we'll see how that goes.

And let me say it again, if you want reviews, you have to do reviews, because people do notice that number of reviews done on the GAN page. If you have 15 noms up and have only done 4 noms yourself, nobody's gonna want to review your stuff because you're more of a drag on the system than anything else.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 19:51, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

• Thank you for electing to review one nom from each contestant. I respectfully have to disagree with your point that "If you have 15 noms up and have only done 4 noms yourself, nobody's gonna want to review your stuff because you're more of a drag on the system than anything else." though. Reviews take a time and attention to do well so if a user does not feel that they can adequately complete a review for whatever reason, then they should not feel pressured to complete one as it would just be a disservice to the person who worked on the article and put it up for GAN. For instance, I am taking a break from doing reviews as I am devoting my time on Wikipedia to content creation, and I am trying to get to more off-Wikipedia activities. I do not think that calling someone a "drag on the system" is appropriate or beneficial to anything. I do not mean to be negative, but I do not see the value in such language to this project or even Wikipedia as a whole. Aoba47 (talk) 20:11, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

• I agree. No one should have to do reviews. Some editors prefer to create content, like myself. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 21:00, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

• Thank you for the response! I am surprised and disappointed that the "drag on the system" comment came from a WikiCup judge. Aoba47 (talk) 21:38, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

• Whether or not those with many nominations but few reviews are seen by some as "drags" on the system, when I see a nomination by someone with a large number of reviews, I tend to expect that the article will meet a higher standard. My first impression of an article by a someone with 40 reviews would be that the nominator knows the GA criteria; and though first impressions can be misleading, they are also valuable. --Usernameunique (talk) 21:42, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

• Whether or not a person feels that way, this should not be put out by a WikiCup judge (@Sturmvogel 66:) in such a manner. The judge's message borders on shaming users into doing reviews, which is never good. I also respectfully disagree with the above assumption that a certain amount of reviews translates to the ability to create better content that is closer to GAN criteria or standards as that is not always the case. Aoba47 (talk) 21:46, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

• I understand where y'all are coming from, but the simple fact of the matter is that the GAN backlog has been steadily increasing over time. Back around 2010/11 when I won the Cup, backlogs averaged around 400 articles, IIRC, now it's into the mid-600s, an increase of over 50%. Why? Because more people have chosen to nominate articles than to review them, so, sadly, a six-month wait for a review isn't out of the question anymore. And that's downright dispiriting.
• <rant>One of the primary reasons that we now award points for GARs is that we don't want to cause any more of a drag on the GAN system than already exists and, I'm happy to say, we have always had more GARs than GANs, so nobody can point to the Cup and try to blame the backlog on us. We've rejected the idea of forcing contestants to do a GAR for every GAN that they submit because incentivizing people with points has worked quite well. That y'all chose not to take advantage of those points is perfectly fine in the context of the Cup. In the larger scheme of reviewing, y'all are chosing to demand more time from other editors to review your GANs than you offer by reviewing theirs and so create imbalance. You can then make the valid response that in the still larger sense of Wikipedia as a whole, y'all are contributing your time on content creation and improvement instead and it all balances out. But, I'd submit, that view ignores what I feel to be the significant role of the review process in improving content quality and boosting the morale of editors who've taken their creations through the process and had them externally validated. I have many hundreds of GAs and it's still a nice feeling when one of my noms is passed. And it's even better when I can amass a bunch of them into a good or featured topic, something that I recommend for all editors as a method to focus your contributions.
• I'm a big believer in balance, if y'all haven't figured that out by now, and it bugs me when people consume more reviewers' time, which is both in high demand and limited supply, than they offer in exchange. For some reason many editors are intimidated by the thought of reviewing when it's actually not very hard at all, provided you know something about the subject in a general sense and take the time to look at 3-6 other reviews as a guide. So it's not just a general demand on editors' time, but rather on the time of the much more limited supply of editors who also review articles. I have no issues with anyone who chooses to focus on content creation, provided that they are not demanding that their stuff be reviewed without contributing reviews themselves, and thus denying other editors the external validation and morale boost that they themselves get when their own articles are reviewed.
• If y'all find this characterization painful or my (barely) forthright language offensive, then you might want to seriously consider why y'all feel that way and think about the effects of your choices and actions on the rest of Wikipedia. If y'all find the current lengthy waits for a GAR acceptable, then by all means continue to add to the backlog. If y'all'd prefer to spend less time waiting for a review, then y'all should review as often as y'all submit, it's as simple as that. Otherwise, y'all are contributing to the problem, not helping to fix it.</rant>--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 22:26, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

With all due respect to those who disagree, who are valuable content contributors, I agree with Sturmvogel. Reviews are an integral part of the quality content process, and in my opinion it's common courtesy to do at least one review for every article one nominates. Nobody expects those reviews to be rushed or of poor quality, just that they get done at some point (I've listed a few GANs and haven't equaled out my nominations yet, though I hope to ASAP). After all, I've found that as I review more articles at FAC, I've been able to recognize mistakes within my own work, which has helped me write higher quality articles in the long run. ceranthor 22:56, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

• I will just leave this as a disagreement in opinions and move on. I still do not believe that such statements are appropriate for a judge in this particular context. I still take issue with the "you're more of a drag on the system" statement as I find it unnecessary and it does not contribute to anything beneficial to Wikipedia as a whole. I have done a lot of reviews on the GAN and FAC level so I understand the importance and value of the review process; I have a great deal of respect for reviewers as I am still learning on how to better at the process myself. My main issue with the "you're more of a drag on the system" statement is not the sentiment behind it, but more so its relevance in this context and on the talk page of the WikiCup. There is no reason to shame users/contributors to do reviews; there is a difference between encouraging people to do reviews and calling them "a drag on the system". I will just leave this here as I do not see this discussion going anywhere that will be beneficial. Aoba47 (talk) 23:09, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

@Wikicup Judges​​​​ -I have one more question. Are the multipliers applicable for GAR also ? — Force Radical∞ ( Talk ⋯ Contribs ) 08:14, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

I ask this because one of my submissions Kochi has articles in 68 Wikipedia's but the bot has given me only 4 points. — Force Radical∞ ( Talk ⋯ Contribs ) 08:14, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

A GAR is a GAR whether it as an important topic or not, and I am afraid the bonus scores do not apply to them. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 08:53, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

Cwmhiraeth-I hate to be a whistle blower but this was were the confusion came from  — Force Radical∞ ( Talk ⋯ Contribs ) 09:36, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

Don't worry! That contestant may have claimed the bonus but the bot has not awarded it to him because it does not apply to GARs. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:00, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

Featured portal

Seeing as the process has been retired and no new featured portals will be promoted in the near future, I propose removing the FPO column in the scores tables. Purely aesthetic, but could be helpful to users with smaller/lower-resolution screens. SounderBruce 04:18, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

Although I agree that the featured portal column is redundant, I am reluctant to make any changes that might impact on how the bot calculates and displays the scores. Also, having the column makes comparison with previous years results easier. "If its not broke, don't fix it". Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:19, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

Timing of DYK readable prose size calculation

Although DYK articles that have at least 5kb of "readable prose size" are worth 10 points rather than 5, it appears that the bot calculates the size at the time of the nomination, not at the time of the appearance on the main page. This significantly limits the amount of time that one has to create an article of requisite size (one effectively has one week to create 5,120 bytes of prose, rather than one week to create 1,500), and disincentivizes any improvement of articles after their DYK nomination is made. It also appears unsynchronized with the rule that DYK points are awarded only after the article appears on the main page; if they are awarded when the article appears, then it seems reasonable to calculate the readable prose size at the same time.

I suggest that the bot change the time of calculation from the date of the DYK's nomination, to the date that it appears on the main page. Making the change now would not be disruptive, as only two DYKs have yet been awarded points, and as it is unlikely to have any impact on advancement to round 2, few points traditionally being needed to make that progression.

Pinging Cwmhiraeth, with whom I had a related discussion, and Jarry1250, who runs the scoring bot. --Usernameunique (talk) 20:03, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

You could create the article in a sandbox, which would give you more time. Let's ping the other judges too: @Godot13, Sturmvogel 66, and Vanamonde93: Cwmhiraeth (talk) 20:12, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

I like the sandbox idea, rather than altering the rules. I'd also emphasize the possibility to contestants so they might try for longer DYKs from the beginning.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 23:20, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

If workable, the sandbox idea seems less than ideal. Since DYK points are only awarded once an article appears on the main page, it would seem logical that length should be determined at the same time. Using sandboxes also seems like an artificial limitation on articles; what would otherwise be a short, informative article would be rendered ungoogleable, simply because it's author wished to gain 5 extra points in an intra-Wikipedia competition. Practically speaking too, one may not have an idea of an article's length when starting. Discovering and tracking down literature can take time, and it may be longer than a week before it is possible to know if an article warrants more than 5kb of prose. Having to wait to publish an article simply to gain 5 points in a fun competition seems, realistically, pointless. --Usernameunique (talk) 02:16, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

I tend to create all my articles in my sandbox for a couple of reasons primarily because I rarely finish them in one sitting. That said, it strikes me as odd that we should require folks to create articles in the sandbox in order to get the maximum number of points. Since we should be incentivizing article improvements at every stage, I personally would like to see the bot's calculation system changed, and (again, this is my personal view) would be okay with awarding the "difference" in points to anybody who is affected until such a time as the change is made. Of course, we would need consensus among the judges for this. Regards, Vanamonde (talk) 16:49, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

No one needs to create a large DYK in a sandbox; I've written many that size or bigger in a day or two, but I think that it's an option that busier people/slower writers might not think about doing unless reminded.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 17:11, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

Sturmvogel 66 & Cwmhiraeth, even if sandboxes are a workaround, is there any reason why it is better to calculate size at the time of nomination, rather than at the time of main page appearance? --Usernameunique (talk) 18:21, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

My personal philosophy is, accept the scoring as it is, and use it to your advantage, adapting your scoring strategy accordingly. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 18:57, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

I would imagine that the page at nomination reflects "your" work more so than the page when it hits the front page, could be quite a time lapse between the two and a bunch of people can have added to it, pushing it to a larger size and thus the nominator would get credit in some cases where they did not actually do the work.  MPJ-DK  23:55, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

That's an interesting point, MPJ-DK. I would have thought that more time would allow for more careful and thoughtful editing, but there's also the (purely WikiCup-specific) risk that the article's content would less fully represent the nominator's contributions. At any rate, Cwmhiraeth is right, accepting the rules for what they are and figuring out how to adapt to them them is more productive than finding ways to change them during the competition. --Usernameunique (talk) 05:54, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

Hi all. Apologies for the delay. The bot actually tries to calculate the prose size at time of appearance on the main page (which I think is what is being asked for here) although this is surprisingly difficult to work out. Do you have an example of where it struggled? I might be able to refine the algorithm. - Jarry1250 ^{[Vacation needed]} 19:29, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

Oh, sorry, you did suggest Emesa helmet. I'll have a look. You can also override the bot's calculations manually -- we should never be beholden to its failures. - Jarry1250 ^{[Vacation needed]} 19:31, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

Sturmvogel 66 Usernameunique Cwmhiraeth I've refined the algorithm. If you delete the multiplier template, the bot will have another go at the next pass. Best, - Jarry1250 ^{[Vacation needed]} 22:35, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

Rounds question

Do points carry over between rounds or do all scores reset at the end of a round? SpartaN (talk) 13:08, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

They reset. Argento Surfer (talk) 13:12, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

Question about FAC

Hello everyone! I have received a post from a fellow editor suggesting that I include one of my recent FACs (Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/3 of Hearts (album)/archive1) as part of my WikiCup submissions. However, I do not think it would be admissible as a majority of the work on the associated was completed in 2017, prior to the start of the WikiCup. While I made edits to the article during the FAC according to other's suggestions, I do not believe that any of them were particularly substantial. I wanted to confirm this just so I have a clear understanding of the rules on submissions and the associated time period. Thank you in advance! Aoba47 (talk) 01:23, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

This is a borderline case. If the FAC had been started in December 2017, the answer would have been no, the article would not qualify. However the article was nominated on January 1st 2018 and you did significant work on it during the course of the review so my answer would be that you can claim for it. It is possible that another judge may disagree with this, but it seems probable that you will qualify for round 2, whether or not you have these points. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:52, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

• Thank you for the response. Aoba47 (talk) 15:36, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

@Cwmhiraeth: By the same token, would Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Harry R. Truman/archive1 then qualify? I had assumed it wouldn't. ceranthor 15:41, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

@Ceranthor: I would say yes, that's a more clear-cut decision. You did quite a bit of work on it in 2018 before nominating it on 5 January, and more during the review. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 18:17, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

Great, thanks! Unexpected. ceranthor 18:20, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

@Aoba47: Told you. :) PanagiotisZois (talk) 16:34, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

• Thank you! It is nice to learn something new so I greatly appreciate it. Aoba47 (talk) 18:47, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

Question

Is the calculation here correct? FrB.TG (talk) 20:37, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

You don't have to calculate the bonus as the bot will do it next time it makes a pass. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 20:47, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

I see. I’ve seen other users do it. Is the calculation correct though (Hathaway has an article in 79 other languages)? FrB.TG (talk) 20:53, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

Other users shouldn't do it. I believe the maximum is 50 other languages and you should get triple points. If you look at User:Farang Rak Tham's submissions you can see that the bot has given him a (1.2x multiplier) for 5 languages (the English version also counts). Cwmhiraeth (talk) 21:11, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

Just so I understand it, may I ask why this bonus idea was included?--Farang Rak Tham (talk) 21:24, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

Hypothetically, important subjects will have articles in more languages than unimportant ones. This scoring system incentivizes editors to improve these important subjects. The system isn't perfect, but it's the best option that's been put forward so far. Argento Surfer (talk) 21:37, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

Okay. But it might cause people to favor articles of some wikiprojects over others.--Farang Rak Tham (talk) 07:35, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

I see the bot has now been through and the 3x multiplier has been applied, giving FrB.TG the splendid total of 600 points for his featured article. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:24, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

Maybe can I suggest we award bonus points if the article appears on the global vital article list? 1.02 editor (talk) 13:37, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

We've already had this discussion and the answer was no as the vital list is arbitrary and incomplete. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 15:09, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

GAR finished during break

Hey everyone, I just added a GAR to my submissions page, but we are on break at the moment. Should I remove it and re-add it once my page is reset for round 2? Zwerg Nase (talk) 21:46, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

yes Argento Surfer (talk) 21:52, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

@Argento Surfer: OK, thanks! Zwerg Nase (talk) 22:01, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

Question

Hi, I'd like to ask if this would qualify for 4 points as the situation there is quite complex. Thanks 1.02 editor (C651 set 217/218) 06:09, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

At the moment I would say no, your involvement could not be described as being "substantial". However, if you were to add to your second opinion by addressing each of the GA criteria in turn (referencing, neutrality, copyvios, stability, image licensing etc), the review could qualify. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:39, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

Ok thanks! 1.02 editor (C651 set 217/218) 14:58, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

For next year?

(NEXT YEAR) Is it a possibility that about five points could be given for writing an article in The Signpost. The articles do have to be published, and I feel it is equivalent to writing a DYK article. Eddie891's creature 22:40, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

I think the cup is meant to improve content for readers to read, not as much for editors.Nova Crystallis (Talk) 00:40, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

two minor things

1. The Round 1 archive still have everyone in green. Not sure if that's intentional, but it's not in line with previous years.
2. When Living Bot calculates bonus points, the edit summary contains a link to Wikipedia:WikiCup/Suggestions. This list hasn't been updated in 5 years. Argento Surfer (talk) 18:48, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

I will deal with your first point, but your second one is really @Jarry1250:'s realm. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 20:49, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

Perhaps we could update the suggestions page? It seems like a reasonable idea to me. - Jarry1250 ^{[Vacation needed]} 17:06, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

Living Bot problem

@Jarry1250, Cwmhiraeth, Godot13, Sturmvogel 66, and Vanamonde93: For Stephen Court Fire DYK I got only 5 points whereas I was eligible for 10 points.(7875 bytes according to pagesize tool today). Please look into the matter. Thanks — FR⁺ 11:31, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

I agree that it should be 10 points and have adjusted the points accordingly. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 19:18, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

Cwmhiraeth-Living Bot has reverted the scores to 5 again — FR⁺ 10:18, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

PS:Its my hunch it has some thing to do with TRM's move (The bot is probably calculating the size of redirect and not the article) — FR⁺ 10:21, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

Maybe. This is really the realm of @Jarry1250:, but we will make sure your ten points are counted at the end of the round whether or not the underlying issue has been sorted. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:33, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

I've had a look and yes, I think it was just confused because it thought you were claiming for the capitalised version. For future reference, to overrule the bot properly, you just change the multiplier template on the submissions page to what it should be. Or, you can delete the template and the bot will "have another go". Best, - Jarry1250 ^{[Vacation needed]} 17:10, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

Withdraw

Hi, I’d like to withdraw my name from the competition as I have no intention of creating new content at the moment. FrB.TG (talk) 10:13, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

I have marked you as withdrawn. We are sorry to see you go, but perhaps you will take part again next year. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:44, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

Article edits

Can a judge determine if I edited the Wally Schirra article enough to claim it for GA points? Kees08 (Talk) 09:30, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

Indeed you can claim it. See this record. However, I did disallow one of your GA reviews recently, not because it wasn't a satisfactory review, but just because it was too short to claim points in the WikiCup. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:41, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

I saw that, no hard feelings about it. I have reviews of a similar length that I did get points for (in this round, and in the past), but I usually use the GA Table template. You may want to go through my submissions again, and check on prose or something else. Kees08 (Talk) 09:44, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

Each review gets looked at by one of the judges. Most of your reviews are fine. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:10, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

@Cwmhiraeth: I never do ITN; I nominated an article, it was posted, and I did a lot of edits after that. Can I claim points for it or no? Alan Bean article, for reference. Kees08 (Talk) 07:44, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

I'm unfamiliar with the In the news procedure, but the article seems to have appeared on the main page on 26th May. You edited the article in December 2017 but not again before it appeared on ITN on the 26th May. You have edited it since, but I don't think that is sufficient to qualify for WikiCup points. Next time, work on the article before it appears on ITN! Cwmhiraeth (talk) 08:40, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

Sounds good that is what I figured. I decided not to do it that way so it did not look like I was gaming the system. Thanks for looking! Kees08 (Talk) 20:59, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

Withdrawal from challenge

Cwmhiraeth, Godot13, Sturmvogel 66 and Vanamonde93, I am recently suffering a significant loss in my life (A close relation of mine has died on his birthday). So, I would like to withdraw from the competition as I'm not in the state to continue. Thank you.  — Ssven2 ^{Looking at you, kid} 02:47, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

We're sorry for your loss, Ssven2, and sorry to see you go. Take care, Vanamonde (talk) 05:13, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

Hiya, you can withdraw me too—forgot to nom one of my FAs in time for this round... oops (not watching, please {{ping}}) czar 01:02, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

We are sorry to see you leave. Try again next year! Cwmhiraeth (talk) 13:28, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

Bot miscalculation

@Jarry1250, Cwmhiraeth, Godot13, Sturmvogel 66, and Vanamonde93: I think the bot has miscalculated my DYK points for Rector v. MLB. I checked it and it had 5,200+ characters and should have received 10 points. Would one of you be able to look at it please? The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 08:20, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

The rule states "Articles with at least 5 KB (that is, 5120 bytes) "readable prose size", whether expansions or new articles, are worth 10 points." On April 1st the article was 5046 bytes, but you added some extra text just before midnight which made it 5230 bytes by the time the DYK kicked in on 2nd April. So I agree that it should have qualified on length for ten points. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 08:53, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

@Cwmhiraeth: So should I remove the bot template and have it re-evaluate? The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 06:26, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

You could try. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:39, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

@Jarry1250, Cwmhiraeth, Godot13, Sturmvogel 66, and Vanamonde93: Ran into the same issue as The C of E with Let's Move Nashville. The article is at 13,930 characters, but the bot only awarded 5 points. SounderBruce 00:28, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

I can verify that this should have received 5 extra points for length. @SounderBruce: I'd suggest, as above, that you remove the bot template and have it re-evaluate the page; and if that doesn't work we can do a manual update. Regards, Vanamonde (talk) 04:29, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

Looks like it didn't do the trick. SounderBruce 08:26, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

I've edited the template manually, let's see if that works. Vanamonde (talk) 08:35, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

I am a little confused. If you look at PanagiotisZois submission of The Haunting of Amphipolis, it was a long article and was awarded "(5 extra base points)", and that seems correct. Now looking at your submissions, Edmonds station (Washington) was awarded "(10 bonus points)" but I cannot see any reason for this, and I think it should have been treated in the same way as PanagiotisZois submission because it exceeded the length threshold. Similarly Let's Move Nashville, doesn't qualify for any bonus points but should receive 10 points because of its length. As far as I can see, your DYK score should be "30" and your bonus score "0". I think we need @Jarry1250: to sort this out. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:21, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

Edmonds station qualified for bonus points because it was a 5-fold expansion of an article created in 2007, on top of the 5 extra base points. SounderBruce 09:41, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

It wasn't rated as a stub when you started to expand it on 23 March 2018‎, so I don't think it does qualify for the bonus, and if it did, I think it should be 10 points (see Casliber's submission of Pygmy eagle, which was rated as a stub). Cwmhiraeth (talk) 13:18, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

Popping in here, not sure where you're getting that from-- the rules state the following: "5 bonus points will be awarded to any DYK article which has existed since 2012 or earlier (i.e., 5 years before the start of the 2018 competition). In addition, older articles will be awarded 1 point for each year created before 2012. For example, an article begun in 2008 will receive 4 additional points for a total of 9. The bot will calculate this, but any mistakes can be reported on the WikiCup talk page." Not sure where the stub part comes in there. Nomader (talk) 14:02, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

You are right, Nomader, and I was wrong. I remember discussions back in November 2014, where the merits of awarding bonus points for expanding aged stubs was discussed and this rule was introduced, but the word "stub" was never included in the rule. We still await Jarry1250's input on the bonus point scoring however. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 17:14, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

Underlying problem with the calculation fixed in commit a6e39aa5 (essentially fixing a regression in 130c52eb). Apologies for the confusion. - Jarry1250 ^{[Vacation needed]} 13:50, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

@Jarry1250, Cwmhiraeth, Godot13, Sturmvogel 66, and Vanamonde93: I've also found the same problem with my DYKs. I've received 5 points each for all my DYKs, even though several are longer than 5k, such as Wang Bingzhang (general). -Zanhe (talk) 20:01, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

It also miscalculated Rogue & Gambit for me. Argento Surfer (talk) 20:25, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

I am sorry that this is still an issue. @Jarry1250: is responsible for the bot that does the scoring, but If the problem still persists as we approach the end of the round, please mention it here again so that scores can be adjusted. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:09, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

@Zanhe: You are correct in saying that Wang Bingzhang (general) should have received 10 points. I have modified the multiplier template manually. I will try to check your other DYKs, and in general, will try to examine DYK submissions near the end of the round to make sure promotions are done correctly. Argento Surfer, in your case the scoring appears to be correct. The prose size of the revision which appeared on the main page is 2922 bytes: 5 points is quite correct. Vanamonde (talk) 07:22, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

Zanhe, I have now checked all of your DYKs. I believe the only error is the one you pointed out above; if there are others, please let us know. Vanamonde (talk) 08:06, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

• @Jarry1250, Cwmhiraeth, Godot13, Sturmvogel 66, and Vanamonde93: The same thing has happened again on Rantzen v Mirror Group Newspapers (1986) Ltd and others. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 11:20, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

What points are you expecting to receive for this DYK? Cwmhiraeth (talk) 11:29, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

I'm seeing 4341 bytes readable prose size, meaning that five points is quite correct. Vanamonde (talk) 11:31, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

Declined review points

@Vanamonde93: - discussing this here per the message on my talk page. This review was declined for points because only one issue was raised directly with the nominator. As noted in the review, I corrected several grammatical points myself as I read through the article. This wouldn't be an issue if I had listed them in the review for the nominator to fix, so I don't think it should be an issue that I fixed them. Argento Surfer (talk) 12:58, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

As I said on AS's talk page, I declined this chiefly because there was only a single substantive point raised on the review page, but I'm happy to be over-ruled by another judge if they are so inclined. Vanamonde (talk) 13:31, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

The points for this specific one aren't important since the round is over, but I'd still appreciate a second opinion on this. It will impact the way I review articles going forward. Argento Surfer (talk) 19:04, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

The rules say "Only reviews of a sufficient length will be counted; quick fails and very short reviews will generally not be awarded points. As a rough guide, no review shorter than 1000 bytes will be considered, though the judges reserve the right to remove other short reviews. This is not to say that such short reviews are not worthwhile, it is merely to say that they will not be recognised in this competition." The judges are looking for evidence that the review has been properly conducted and that the GA criteria have been properly considered. We won't know you are doing copyedits to the article unless you mention it in the review. I favour some sort of checklist because it encourages the reviewer to consider all the criteria, and the judges can see its a competent review. Does that help? Cwmhiraeth (talk) 20:05, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

I linked the diff of my copyedits under item 1A of the checklist. Argento Surfer (talk) 20:11, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

But if you made the nominator fix their own grammar issues, the review would be long enough to count. Nova Crystallis (Talk) 20:24, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

Right, which why I don't think this should be a problem. It's the same results but less time-consuming for the nominator and me. Argento Surfer (talk) 20:42, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

FWIW, I agree with Argento Surfer. Kees08 (Talk) 20:52, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

Withdraw

I would like to withdraw from the competition as I will be primarily focusing on off-Wikipedia activities for the rest of the year. I will periodically come on Wikipedia to do some work, but nothing too major; I am going to try and be more judicious with my time. Good luck to all of the remaining contestants! Aoba47 (talk) 21:13, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

If that is what you wish, I will mark you as withdrawn. However I remember that you withdrew last year and subsequently remained active in Wikipedia and could probably have reached the final round. It's up to you. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 12:56, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

• Thank you for the note. I will most likely be keeping my edits on Wikipedia to a minimal for the next few months (i.e. maintenance of articles/lists, etc.) to keep focus on my off-Wikipedia activity. I will do so once my current FAC is completed, regardless of the outcome. I have found myself getting too caught up in FAC/GAN reviews and projects so I want to take a step back for a minute. Aoba47 (talk) 22:43, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

Withdrawing

Hey y'all! Didn't want to have to do this, but unfortunately I have to withdraw from the competition. Real life has just become super pressing and I won't be free to actively participate again until October. Had a great time competing and will definitely be back next time. Nomader (talk) 14:12, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

@Cwmhiraeth:, @Godot13:, @Sturmvogel 66: and @Vanamonde93: Pinging judges here. Nomader (talk) 01:28, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

I missed your original posting here but have belatedly marked you as withdrawn. See you next year then! Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:27, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

Results

So the 2018 WikiCup has come to an end. Congratulations to our winner, Courcelles, our runner up Kosack, our third place competitor Kees08 and our other finalists, and to all those that took part in this years contest. A newsletter from the judges will be circulated shortly. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:08, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

Congrats to you, and thanks to all who participated! ---Another Believer _(Talk) 14:46, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

Congrats Courcelles, a thoroughly deserved winner. Happy to take second, didn't expect to make it to the last round let alone finish that high. Kosack (talk) 15:11, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

Congratulations Courcelles, and thanks for all those GA reviews! Hard to believe that I've ended up in the Arsenal spot for the second consecutive year. SounderBruce 21:54, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

I was surprised to see almost half of the final round contestants at WikiConference North America; I think some of us got quite a bit done during the last two weeks of October. Nova Crystallis (Talk) 06:44, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

Really pleased to see such a successful competition. Congratulations to the finalists, and thanks to the judges. Josh Milburn (talk) 13:50, 3 November 2018 (UTC)