Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history/World War I task force/Contest

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Scoring table format[edit]

Be careful Maralia that your new format damaged the second scoring table. Would you be able to fix this? --Eurocopter (talk) 16:48, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, had stepped away for a few minutes; looks like you have fixed it in the interim. Thanks. Maralia (talk) 18:01, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Collaboration[edit]

I have suggested here that we allow for collaboration on content. Eurocopter agreed but felt that this "should only be allowed for ACR/FAC". I'm not sure why we would want to limit this, aside from the minor logistical issue of splitting odd numbers. I do agree with the premise that "the scoring procedure would be based on agreement between the collaborating editors (in which they will decide in percentage the split of the points)." Maralia (talk) 18:01, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

I believe that we should allow collaboration only for A/FA because experienced editors can quite easly write an article to GA status, so I expect no major interest for collaboration worth such logistical efforts until this point. However, this is only my point of view, we shall see other's. --Eurocopter (talk) 19:41, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Contest navigation templates[edit]

Do we need both {{WPMILHIST World War I task force contest}} and {{WPMILHIST World War I task force contest footer}}? I'm not sure whether a header or footer navigation template would work best, but I don't see any real benefit in having two different ones.

It would be nice, incidentally, if we could add {{WPMILHIST Navigation}} to its usual top-right spot on all the contest pages. This works out easily enough if we go with the footer version of the contest-specific navigation box; but I can probably put together a version of the header box that aligns nicely with the standard navbox if we want to use that option instead. Kirill [talk] [pf] 02:28, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

No I don't think we really need them both. I agree with replacing the first one with our navigation template if it won't ruin the layout. Perhaps leaving the header template is better? --Eurocopter (talk) 20:03, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
Okay, I'll play around with having the navigation box as a header template. Kirill [talk] [pf] 02:39, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
How does that look? If the new template layout works, then we can replicate it on the other contest pages, and delete {{WPMILHIST World War I task force contest footer}}. Kirill [talk] [pf] 03:42, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Awards[edit]

I think the poppy themed awards Roger suggested at WT:MHCOORD would be there best course of action in regards to awards. First place gets a modified Golden Wiki that has a poppy, and this could be also done for second and third (Silver and Bronze Wikis with poppies). A poppy themed service award could also be presented to all entrants. This theme, I believe, is rather apt as a generic symbol of the First World War, and Remberance Day on which this is to start. The mention of the WikiChevrons with Oak Leaves should be removed, though, due to the issues outlined at the Coords talkpage. Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 00:35, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Could you post the awards here? I'm not sure of which ones you are talking about. Cheers, --Eurocopter (talk) 13:27, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
They aren't made up yet, but probably wouldn't take much to do so. This is Roger's statement:
"Thinking aloud here ... Depending how big we want to make this drive (and it has potential to be very ambitious), we could probably introduce a modifed service award for all participants, with say the Flander poppy replacing the star (or placing it behind the star). This would tie in with the 11 November theme. For the main prize, we could then superimpose the wiki over a poppy (which is easy). Thoughts? Roger Davies talk 11:42, 22 September 2009 (UTC)"
Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 23:45, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
Yes, I agree, but I have no idea of how to create these new awards. Do you know someone who is able to produce them? --Eurocopter (talk) 12:49, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
I'll ask Roger, and see if he can help. ;-) Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 00:32, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Designs[edit]

Further to Bryce's request, the initial service award adaptations are presented for your approval:

Service awards

The poppy may need lightening up (done), and there may be other ideas for improvements. What do you think? EyeSerenetalk 12:25, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Hm, I'd prefer giving the 1st variant to all participants, the second one to those accepted in round 2 and the third one to those accepted in the final round. For the first three places we would need something more important. Would it be possible to add the poppy to the next wiki trophies (instead of the W)?
Wiki trophies
Winner 
2nd place 
3rd place 

Thanks! --Eurocopter (talk) 12:36, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

That's next on my list :) EyeSerenetalk 12:53, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
Looks very good so far in my opinion. Thanks for the excellent work, EyeSerene! I agree with your thoughts on awarding the service awards also, Eurocopter. Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 13:08, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
I should have something more for you soon. Nothing's letting me upload files at the moment, but I'll try again when I get home :P EyeSerenetalk 15:51, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

OK, first draft of trophies:

Wiki trophies
Winner 
2nd place 
3rd place 

I had to apply some shadow and relighting effects to make the poppy look as though it was part of the image and not just pasted on, which washed out the bronze wiki slightly making it almost indistinguishable from the gold, so I recoloured it as well. Hopefully the end result isn't too dark - any changes needed though, just let me know :) EyeSerenetalk 19:34, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

They're perfect, thank you very much! --Eurocopter (talk) 21:05, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
Well done, EyeSerene, you've done an amazing job! They look great. We should probably display them on the main contest page, I think. Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 00:42, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

A Question[edit]

I would love to do some serious contributing to Wikipedia as opposed to my usual lurking on talk pages. However, I would perhaps have an unfair advantage considering the vast number of projects I have in my userspace. Would this be an issue? --Simon Harley (talk | library | book reviews) 19:08, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

The rules of the contest are posted on its main page and they are quite clear, so I don't believe that there will be any issue. Feel free to join the contest! --Eurocopter (talk) 19:14, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

reviewing - a thought[edit]

This contest is going to rely on a lot of work by reviewers in assessing articles both before and after an editor has worked on them, I think maybe the contest should in some way recognise this reliance on reviews by awarding points for the number of reviews especially for C,B,A reviews which are reliant on the project. Gnangarra 23:50, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Scoring and reviews[edit]

I see that getting an article from start to B-class is only worth 3 points, but that getting a B to GA is worth 14. But this has real potential to further back up the GA, A and FA reviews, IMO. Heck, I could dump a couple of dozen WWI articles into the GAR queue the minute the contest began. Normally I only run one or two GARs at a time, which isn't going to keep the backlog from expanding when all these articles are dumped into the queue. Perhaps we can motivate people by awarding a point for a GAR, 2 points for a substantial contribution to a ACR and, similarly, 3 points for a FAR. This could perhaps be judged by the length of comments as given by diffs. And contestants would be limited to only a single nominee at FAR. And maybe no points should be awarded for a GAR if the nominating editor called for a second opinion. This would protect both parties from charges of unreasonableness, bias, etc. Thoughts, comments?--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 00:37, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Sounds like a good idea to me. It seems rather logical that we should award points for reviews, given that we are no doubt going to create a bit of a backlog. Good thinking, mate. Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 00:54, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
Hm, we shouldn't disconsider the importance of GA/A/FA work and award them such few points as proposed above. In my opinion improving an article only to B-class is unfinished work and perhaps somebody else in the future would start working all over again to take that article to GA/FA. I agree that there was a discrepancy between start to B and B to GA and made a brief change in the scoring system which I hope you'll agree with. Cheers, --Eurocopter (talk) 12:14, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
Sturmvogel is referring to awarding these points for reviewing articles, not for working on them. Considering that the contest may well create backlogs in several areas, such as GAN and ACR, then we should introduce an incentive to decrease that backlog while simultaneously earning points, which is the basis of Sturmvogel's post. Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 13:02, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
Oh, apologise me! I was quite in a hurry when reading his comments and did not get the idea. Of course this is a good idea and we should point any GAN/ACR/FAC input, though this is quite complicated to implement since we already have 11 submission pages. Is anyone willing to help me with this? --Eurocopter (talk) 14:32, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
The simplest thing, I think, is to add some extra lines on each competitor's submission page where he/she can list GARs, etc. The ACR/FARs should have diffs added to show exactly how much was contributed. This latter part is the really difficult one since it's a subjective judgement as its quite possible to be very long-winded and not say anything of substance. The key thing for these contests, I think, is to put as much of the burden as possible on the contestants, rather than the judges(s).--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 15:45, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
Again, sounds all good to me. :) I'll leave it up to Sturmvogel to work out the derails, but it should be added in soon. We know you're busy organising this for the contest, Eurcopter, so I forgive you. ;-) Lol. Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 00:39, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

I just added a section into the scoring table then, giving a generic 2 points for a substantial review of a GAN, ACR or FAC. I'll go and add another appropiate section to each of the submissions pages, but feel free to tweak/correct as necessary! Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 00:59, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Appreciate the throught that's going into this and my apologies for not registering my comments earlier, but I think the concept of 'substantial review' is a concern. I'd actually recommend separating the GA review from the rest, because the GAR is almost always a one-person job, they bear the whole burden, and the backlog is the worst. So while I think by all means give 'em 2 points for a GAR, we should reduce the peer/A/FA review points to 1 or even 0.5, and lose the 'substantial' bit. I know it seems unfair for the guys who put a lot of work into the vital higher reviews, but it'll cut the subjectivity and it's the GARs we need to encourage most IMO. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 02:27, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
I must continue to apologise for not thinking of these things until I strike them in the course of the contest proper, but was it deliberate to not award any points for reviewing an article under PR, when we do for GAN, ACR, and FAC? I'd have thought PR comments should be encouraged as much as the others, and I'm pretty sure the 1 point mentioned in connection with PR now is purely for an editor submitting a review, not a reviewer posting comments at the review... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 01:53, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
I was actually just thinking the same thing. For some reason I thought awarding points for reviewing a PR was mentioned somewhere, but it obviously isn't. I think it should probably be included with the GAR, ACR and FAC reviews. Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 02:34, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Silly question[edit]

Could someone explain the basics of the scoring system here? Do participants get points for doing reviews or only for getting something through a review? And if an article actually falls within the WWI taskforce but hasn't specifically been tagged for the taskforce, how does that get ironed out? Maybe I'll just wimp out and restore images, although there is a GA that I'd been meaning to take to FAC... Durova360 07:05, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Participants get points for submitting a peer review, apologise it isn't explained too clear at the moment. If an article falls under WWI scope and is not tagged for the WWI TF, feel free to tag it yourself. If you have doubts whether an article falls or not under this TF don't hesitate to ask. Good luck! --Eurocopter (talk) 11:37, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
I think Durova is referring to the "Initial article assessment" and "Complete B-Class checklist" point allocation, which I'm a little unsure on myself due to the same reasons as Durova; do we got points for reviewing these articles, or for getting them reviewed? I presume the former, but I'm not quite sure. Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 13:06, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
No, you get points for assessing the article and completing the checklist yourself. This encourages completing B-class checklists to start-class articles and assessing properly newly created articles. --Eurocopter (talk) 16:09, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
Thought so; thanks for clarifying that, mate. :) I presume we are taking the norm and discouraging self-assessments? Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 00:35, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Postponement[edit]

Hoping that more editors will join the contest, I'll postpone the start of it by 20 hours (till 20:00, 11th November). Apologise and hope there are no major inconveniences! --Eurocopter (talk) 13:56, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

That is what Word is for, my friend... I can compose away until the material needs to be submitted. I relish the challenge, ala Sir Arthur Currie or Field Marshal Byng! Monsieurdl mon talk 22:24, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

WWI Gas Attack[edit]

I have heard about a gassed American military unit in France from which only 2 of approximately 100 soldiers survived. I know nothing else except that one of the soldiers was from Brooklyn, NY. I am asking if any WWI experts might know something about this event.489thCorsica (talk) 18:12, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Propose copyediting alerts section for contests[edit]

Hi, there has been some concern about overloading the review system. Although I won't be entering, I'd like to make a special effort to get involved in review for the contest. The WPMILHIST Copy-editing alerts template is fantastic - can we please get a "Contest" section (possibly appropriately named) where I can find relevant article reviews? Also, since pictures are eligible as entries, can we please get notification of those - actually could we get notification for all Milhist related FPCs? I realise these are not trivial coding / administrative tasks, but they would be much appreciated. Dhatfield (talk) 19:59, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Good idea! Any ideas for smoothing the processes which might get overloaded during the contest are welcome. Thank you for your help! --Eurocopter (talk) 20:38, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

FA?[edit]

Where is FA? :-) —Ed (talkcontribs) 00:42, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

In the "Article Creation and Improvement Points" table. :) Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 00:52, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Signups still open[edit]

In order to get more participants on the way, signups will be open until 1 December! I believe that nobody disagrees with this. --Eurocopter (talk) 20:02, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Call on 'Battle of the Somme' needed[edit]

The article has been rated as 'Start' class, but I do not see a date or review, other than the five points addressed in the talk page here. Thanks for the help! Monsieurdl mon talk 22:35, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

And quite properly so because it's not fully cited.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 23:42, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Question on scoring[edit]

The various submissions pages say that DYK and ITN submissions are worth 5 points. However, on the main contest page, it says these items are worth 10 points. Which of these are correct? Thanks! Dana boomer (talk) 22:05, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Following up on this it looks like we've gone consistently to 10 points for DYK and ITN submissions but this seems too much now I see it in black-and-white on the scoreboard (and I say this knowing it will harm my score). Why, for instance, would we award more points for DYKing a new article (10 points) than we award for creating that self-same article to B-class standard (8 points)? The Aviation contest awards 5 for DYK/ITN, which makes more sense to me. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 20:49, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
I have modified the number of points awarded for DYK/ITN submissions considering that we decided to award more points for level ups to start class in comparison with the Aviation contest. Generally, the scoring system is different from the one applyed at the Avi contest. Considering that everyone is receiving the same amount of points for a certain contribution, I can't see any real problem with the scoring system. Best, --Eurocopter (talk) 21:17, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
Quite honestly I'm not sure why a DYK is worth anything since they're very easy to do if you expand or create an article enough and they reward somebody like me who writes brings up a lot of articles to B-class compared somebody who focuses on getting a few articles to A or FA, but doesn't expand it enough to qualify for a DYK. I don't think that they are worth more than getting a new article up to B-class since you'll often get both which means that the pairing is worth 18 points, more than the 14 for getting a B-class to GA, which, quite honestly, I don't regard as a big issue if you've written your B-class well. It's really just a matter of time because you're waiting on a reviewer. Hell, I've gotten about a third of my points here from DYKs, and they're a significant factor in my victories in the Aviation contest. If they weren't as valuable as they are I'd spend more time upgrading more substantial articles to A-class or better, rather than focusing on the quickie prototype articles that I can get up to B-class in a few hours and also get points for the DYK. I'd rate them at half, or less, the value of a B-class article from scratch because they'll almost always accompany each other. Although, I admit, I have been stumped on occasion for lack of a good hook.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 23:23, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
Well I think Storm and I are pretty well in agreement - good to reward DYKs and ITNs, just giving them more than a B-Class creation/level-up looks anomalous so 5 pts seems more logical. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 00:28, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
I agree that the original 5 points delt out for these is more apt, 10 points is just a little over the top due to Sturmvogel's rational. Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 00:47, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Article under taskforce?[edit]

I started looking at List of Asian American Medal of Honor recipients as a possible FLC for this contest, as it is currently tagged as under the WWI task force. However, there are no WWI soldiers present in this list. Is there another reason that this list was included under the task force, or was it just mistakenly tagged? Thanks! Dana boomer (talk) 22:37, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

I would say mistakenly tagged. Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 23:51, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

FAQ[edit]

Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/World War I task force/Contest/FAQ needs attention, up to and including a spell check... --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 03:47, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Scoring changes[edit]

Per discussions above, an idea has come out that we should reduce the number of points awarded for submitting a DYK/ITN and award points for reviewing Peer reviews. While I would completely agree with the second issue, being just an omission that it doesn't currently exists in the GAN/ACR/FA review scoring label, I won't disagree nor agree with the reduction of points awarded for DYKs. Although several editors expressed above decent arguments sustaining this issue, I must say that we should give a strong encouragement for users to write DYKs, keeping in mind that DYK is almost the single chance of a low-importance wiki article to get out from its obscurity (a good DYK hook might get even 200.000 views per day for its article).

As these should be the last scoring changes to be made to this contest, I invite all participants to express their recomandations, complaints and opinions now. We should also decide whether we apply or not the first change mentioned above. Cheers, --Eurocopter (talk) 09:00, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

IMO, they should be worth half the value of getting a new article up to B-class, because they're usually going to be done together.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 15:59, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
Of course we should award points for, and encourage, DYKs and ITNs, however the current points awarded for each is a little excessive. As Sturmvogel pointed out, currently a DYK is being granted greater points than a newly created B-Class article, and considering that the two typically go hand-in-hand and how relatively simple it is to get a DYK, then this is rather excessive. I think the original figure of 5 points for a DYK and ITN item is more apt. Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 13:50, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
Changed scoring for DYKs back to 5 points but left 10 points for ITNs as I expect them to be rare or even completely inexistent. With this being modified and consensus finally reached regarding DYK issue, I would say that the scoring system is final and should not be subject to changes anymore. --Eurocopter (talk) 16:41, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Question on article improvement score[edit]

I noticed that in the article Battle of Polygon Wood that it has not been reviewed by MILHIST, and yet 7 points have been given out for an improvement to B-class here. How is that so? Is there a separate place for B-class reviews that I have missed? Monsieurdl mon talk 04:28, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

MILHISTiquette[edit]

Seeking suggestions: a couple of weeks ago I put up a GA (within WWI scope) for MILHIST peer review. Would like to get it to A class and FA, but time is getting stretched thin. I can probably churn out one featured picture a week for this contest, but don't generate featured articles at anything approaching that rate. Things look good for finishing the FA drive before the task force contest ends, just not right away. Mostly because an existing commitment to the Tropenmuseum of Amsterdam is expanding. So seeking advice regarding project etiquette: would people who review an article take offense if the improvement drive gets delayed? Not sure where to pose this question so fielding it here. Durova369 04:43, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

So are you asking if the contest first round date be extended due to outside circumstances? If that is the case, then I would not object. Monsieurdl mon talk 13:46, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
Well, if you submit an article to FAC during this round and gets promoted during the second round, the points will count for the second round. Considering that there are almost 100% chances that you will enter the second round, I see no real timing problem (there are more than two months until the start of the final round). --Eurocopter (talk) 09:57, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Henry Allingham[edit]

I note that this WP is running a competition in Henry Allingham's name. I pushed his article up to GA status earlier this year, and hope to achieve FA status. To this end I asked for the article to be copy-edited last month, but another editor thinks that it doesn't need much copyediting. I'm not entering the competition myself, but is there any competitor who wishes to work with me to achieve FA status for the article? Mjroots (talk) 08:51, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

As the initiator of this contest I will be extremely happy if anyone would bring this article to FA and I assure that I'll do my best to adress eventual issues during a FAC (moreover, I'm thinking of a extra-points bonus for the user who brings the article to FA). BTW, feel free to join the contest! --Eurocopter (talk) 13:38, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Recently assessed[edit]

This is the first contest I've taken part in, so forgive me if I'm asking questions that are answered somewhere. I've created my submissions page, and added my first submission here. As it was a new article, I wasn't clear on whether I should ask for it to be assessed, or wait for someone to come along and assess it. In the end, someone did assess it, and I've placed it on my submissions page. If I make later improvements, where do I go to get a new assessment?

I'm also considering returning to a previous article I worked on (La Ferté-sous-Jouarre memorial). That was assessed in June 2008. I was thinking of returning there and doing the work needed to get it from start-class to B-class, but as it was: (a) not "recently assessed prior to [my intended] article improvements" (it was assessed 18 months ago); and (b) it was assessed as passing all the B-class criteria except one, what is the right thing to do here (apart from improve the article!)? I'm thinking that improving the article to meet one B-class criteria may not count.

A few other points. I think my submission page needs adding to various tables (should I do that myself?), and would it be possible for those tables to link to people's submissions pages, rather than their usernames? Or maybe add the submissions template to this page? Carcharoth (talk) 10:24, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

If you wish to request an assessment of an article, you can list it here. In regards to La Ferté-sous-Jouarre memorial, I wouldn't worry to much as, even though it was assessed 18 months ago, I think that assessment is still correct, so you can consider this an assessment from me. ;-) If you would like to work on another article but are worried that it was assessed too long ago, just request a re-assessment at as above. I think you have covered yourself in listing on the appropiate lists, templates, etc, and I just added your name to the scoreboard, so I think everything is done in that case. It might be best to ask Eurocopter on the last point, though, as he is the one who has set this contest up and is, basically, running the show. :) Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 04:39, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
Thanks! The latter point isn't important any more. I was looking at the wrong page. If I look at the main contest page, instead of the round 1 page, the template of user submission pages is listed there. Carcharoth (talk) 12:25, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Scoring headings on submission pages[edit]

When I created my submissions page, I copied someone else's I think. But I now see that the scoring headings on different submissions pages are different, and that the points scoring listed here is different to the scoring system listed here, and some submissions pages use scorings that are different again. I'm happy to update my own submissions page to whichever is correct, but I'm not sure which one is correct. So which scoring system is the one being used? Carcharoth (talk) 10:47, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

There is a little bit of discrepancy in the points as a few changes have been made earlier in the contest, just that I don't think all pages were appropriately updated to reflect these changes. I think I have just corrected all of the remaining issues now, so they should all be the same and, hopefully, correct. Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 04:51, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
Thanks. I made a correction to my page here. I think the same correction needs to be made to two other contest submissions pages (I must have copied one of them): 1, 2. There is also still a discrepancy in the Good Topics scoring at the two lists of the scoring system. The submissions page says 10 points per article in a good topic. The main contest page says 5 points per article in a good topic. The individual submissions pages currently say 10 points, so maybe it is the main contest page bit that needs tweaking? Carcharoth (talk) 12:45, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
Corrections have been made now. Thank you for your notice! If you have any further questions/concerns please feel free to adress them. Best, --Eurocopter (talk) 13:56, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Scope question[edit]

I've been keeping an eye on Category:Unassessed military history articles, looking out for WW1-related articles to assess, and I was wondering where questions of scope should be addressed? I assessed Osowiec Fortress, which "saw heavy fighting during World War I from September 1914 until the Russian Army abandoned it in August 1915", but has earlier history as well. Rather than ask here (which will get tedious) is there a suitable place to ask about scope of articles, or is it a question of using your own judgment? I did try and expand the material in that article related to WW1, but no luck yet. Carcharoth (talk) 22:08, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Announcement[edit]

Due to the fact that I'll be away during New Year's Day and the day before, I won't be able to carry out the logistical transition process between the two rounds of the contest. Therefore, in order to solve this, the current round of the contest will end 23:59, 29 December and the next round will start at 00:00, 30 December (the top 12 editors will promote into the next round). Apologise for any inconvenience. --Eurocopter (talk) 16:14, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

New submissions page for the 2nd round?[edit]

Do we need to do a new submissions page for the second round or do you just want us to continue with the old one? I'd recommend the former to minimize any confusion between rounds.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 00:32, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Seems the pages have been blanked and a diff used to refer back to the previous submissions (archival by reference to page history). If you want your submissions from previous rounds to be visible (it would be nice to have a list of all the articles created or otherwise affected as part of this contest), then archiving to a subpage could be done, and I suppose at the end of the contest, the pages can be redone to show the results of all three rounds. Anyway, back to work - some of us have a lot of catching up to do... :-) Carcharoth (talk) 01:22, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
Ah, quite right. I hadn't noticed the redirect.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 01:53, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

In the news bonus points?[edit]

It might be difficult to get points for an "In the news" entry here (earlier in the year it would have been easier), but not impossible (I have been browsing through Google News, and some things may be suitable - I saw this for example). Was wondering if anyone else was following the news and had seen anything suitable? I don't suppose there would be any bonus points for getting an ITN entry? :-) Carcharoth (talk) 04:38, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

One does, basically, get bonus points for an ITN entry, as originally DYK and ITN had the same points, but ITN were increased due to the limited opportunites one gets to nominate one and the fact that few people do nominate them. :) Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 07:09, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
The main trouble is meeting the "international interest" criterion. I had a few ideas but most, such as this would be rejected as being of local interest only (which is true enough). That was only picked up by a local paper. Are there local or specific topic portals anywhere that could take that? I updated the articles of all three Victoria Cross recipients, so if the MilHist portal has an ITN section, maybe I could suggest it there? I did find something (on Sassoon, a war poet) that might be of international interest (and have submitted it), but will have to wait and see what the verdict is. Same with DYK (you don't have to mention there that you are taking part in a contest, do you? I'm wary of being seen as stretching inclusion criteria here, and will [as always] be deferring to the consensus of those that comment regularly at the template in question). Carcharoth (talk) 16:22, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
Just pointing out a few other advantages to setting some sort of alert to WWI news items (there is something of interest nearly every week): while the items may not be the sort of news that qualifies for ITN, it can lead in other directions. For example, this article is about WWI photographs, so that might be followed up fruitfully. There is also this book review I found, which I noted here - getting hold of that book could be the start to improving that article some more. And there is undoubtedly more "news" out there. Carcharoth (talk) 00:24, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Important notice[edit]

Due to the fact that I'm going to leave in an unexpected holiday Friday and therefore I'll not be able to update any scores nor assure any transition between contests rounds, the contest schedule will suffer the next changes:

  • the second round will last until 10, February 23:59.
  • the final round will start 00:00 11 February and last until 11 March 00:00.

Thanks for understanding and hope again I didn't cause major inconveniences. Keep up the good work! --Eurocopter (talk) 21:13, 27 January 2010 (UTC)