Wikipedia talk:Take the lead!

Archives

November 2015 - March 2016

WLN maybe

Hi @Casliber: if the prizes are available to everyone (e.g. not just those in a certain country (I noticed they are in £25, but if an editor from Canada, the US, or elsewhere wins - will the prize be something they can actually make use of?) we've got precedent for adding this to the watchlist notice (MediaWiki:Watchlist-messages). If you want to go that route, post over at MediaWiki talk:Watchlist-messages. — xaosflux ^Talk 13:08, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

They've traditionally been in Amazon vouchers, which can be used worldwide. The last version of the core contest changed things because of concern about assoiation with Amazon. I am open to ideas (and I guess WMUK are too) about equivalency. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:16, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't mind getting {{The Writer's Barnstar}} or similar. – Reidgreg (talk) 14:37, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Signups

I just found out that this exists, and it seems right up my alley. Is there a deadline for signing up, or should I just wait for the next competition? ItsMackie (talk) 19:25, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@ItsMackie: any entry will yield chances in the lucky dip of prizes so go for it! There are still only 100 entries so a really good chance of scoring something....Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 19:56, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Incorrect tags

Question: what's the protocol for handling articles that are tagged as lacking a lead, but actually have a sufficient one? I know the stub contest considered non-stubs tagged as such eligible for points, so I'm curious how this will be handled here. I've found an example or two already, so I'm unsure how to handle them as regards this. Vaticidalprophet 02:08, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A variation on that, what about articles where it has no lead but an overview section, or a first section that really is a lead but has been erroneously put under a header? Thus the only work being done is to make that extant section the lead. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 02:09, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(a) strictly speaking - fixing an overview section counts as it isn't as it stands a lead. (b) tricky one - taken on a case by case basis. I will count as a "fix" if a lead fixates on one narrow area of a subject. e.g. an endangered taxon where the lead ONLY mentions its endangered status in detail with no discussion of description/behaviour etc. I guess if alreayd tagged then someone has found the lead lacking and an attempt to address this will be looked on favourably.....Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 19:55, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

As last time, several of my entries mainly consist of removing an "overview" header, & a "no lead" tag, plus such tidying as is appropriate. If there actually is an adequate lead, I just remove the tag & move on. Johnbod (talk) 20:47, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

MOS:LEAD compliance

Just checking that entries should be MOS:LEAD compliant. I'm particularly thinking about having to cite anything in the lead which does not appear in the body (and is not readily verifiable). – Reidgreg (talk) 14:46, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That's not exactly what Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Lead_section#Citations says though. Johnbod (talk) 16:04, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Easiest thing would be to just place info in body as well and cite there, surely.....? Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 17:46, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That sounds like best practice. I guess with backlog drives (of any variety) we want the work to be of a quality that it isn't likely to be challenged or re-tagged. – Reidgreg (talk) 01:04, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Contest brief

@Casliber: Thanks for your work organizing this and checking the articles. I did take the scope of the contest to be a bit broader than the three bullet points at Wikipedia:Take the lead! § Selecting articles (ie: no lead section, lead of 1–2 sentences, lead focusing on only one aspect of article subject). Leads which are too long are also a problem (per MOS:LEAD, linked in that section and quoted in the section that followed).

For Texarkana Moonlight Murders, I reduced the lead from a sprawling six paragraphs to a concise three. Chinook Display Team was worse in terms of its lead, which I reduced from seven paragraphs and an overlong quote to a single paragraph. In both cases, I pretty much had to rewrite the article. Personally, I feel that overlong leads are as big of a problem as too-short leads.

Maybe next time around, there could be consideration for expanding the scope of the contest to include articles with leads which are:

deficient
poorly written / not engaging
do not summarise the article
in Category:Wikipedia introduction cleanup
not in compliance with MOS:LEAD

but do not otherwise meet the current three bullet points (all of the above points are mentioned or linked on the contest page).

Thanks for your attention, and thanks again for your work checking the contest entries. – Reidgreg (talk) 16:36, 31 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. If I run this contest again I'll think about how to reword this. I felt it was not good to change rules post-hoc but will do so after this I think. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 21:45, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Announcement

Sorry for delay folks - have asked folks at WMUK to draw the raffle tickets as it were and people are on a small recess over Xmas/NY. Will post soon Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 21:47, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Right then, the winning "tickets"are:

Overall,I voted French name by @Duckmather: as the best lead I read. WMUK will be in touch with the vouchers, whoch are in aliquots of 25 currency units. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 01:02, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This is a nice surprise! Thanks for running the campaign, Cas Liber! {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 01:33, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I am surprised and very pleased. –♠Vami _IV†♠ 04:38, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

What a pleasant surprise! I'm grateful to whoever it was who mentioned this competition during one of the online UK meetups,(@The Wub: do you remember who it was?). PamD 06:42, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That was me. Johnbod (talk) 14:01, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Congrats to all the winners, and thanks to everyone involved! – Reidgreg (talk) 13:36, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, especially Casliber! Johnbod (talk) 14:01, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Adding my thanks to Casliber for all the work organizing—wow so many ledes read! And congratulations to Duckmather, who wrote a very good lede indeed! Innisfree987 (talk) 06:23, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you to everyone that participated in this installment. I'm contacting winners to sort out prizes.Karla Marte(WMUK) (talk) 11:49, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]