Wikipedia

Wikipedia:The Core Contest/Entries/AprilMay2023 archive/August2012 archive

< Wikipedia:The Core Contest‎ | Entries‎ | AprilMay2023 archive
(Redirected from Wikipedia:The Core Contest/Entries/August2012 archive)

The Contest has run over one month from midnight July 31 to midnight August 31 Sydney time. Once the period of active editing time has ended, editors can still submit material they improved in the one month period below.

The contest now concluded, the judges reviewed the submissions and announced winners at Wikipedia:The Core Contest/Winners.

Henry VIII of England edit

  • Nominator - Grandiose (talk · contribs)
  • Improvements: Article at the start of August
  • Comments: Hchc2009 is also working on the article. Not sure how much we're going to get done, but we'll give it some. Referencing is a big issue, and although there's a lot of coverage, some of it is unduely focussed and some bits missing.
  • Update: we have got quite a lot done, but by no-body's standards is this article finished. As such I submit it for review, although compared to the others in the contest it is lacking. Having said that, I'm pleased we've almost doubled the reference count, reworked the layout, added a significant amount and trimmed the rest – the dominance of Henry's wives has been reduced and, personally, that we've reduced the number of times the Catholic Encyclopedia has been used! Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 10:22, 31 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by judges edit

  • Interesting choice - has lots of choppy bits that could do with embellishing and smoothing over. Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:04, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've been looking at the editing work as of 3 August. The classic and best biographies appear to be referenced. Scarisbrick is used overmuch, in my opinion. I think Alison Weir could be cited more often. Jasper Godwin Ridley and John Bowle are in the bibliography but never cited—these books could be borrowed and read. Eric Ives published a book in 2007 which could be used: Henry VIII, Oxford, ISBN 978-0-19-921759-5. David G. Newcombe published a fine book 17 years ago titled, Henry VIII and the English Reformation; it could be tapped for facts. The bit about the wave of political executions needs to be fleshed out somewhat: Who was Henry against and why? A number of paragraphs are not referenced at all—these should all have at least one cite. Binksternet (talk) 04:12, 4 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
There's a huge range of scholarship on Henry - pages and pages of high quality works - and I don't think there's any need to pick out particular ones. Scarisbrick is among the best known authors of the modern era on Henry, and whilst it won't be the only source I think it's suitable as an FA-quality backbone to the article. Obviously the content issues are what we're looking to address. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 18:07, 4 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Please don't take my advice as marching orders or a directive. Certainly, Scarisbrick is the essence of mainstream and therefore quite suitable; he is not wrong on any facts, he is simply kinder than others to Bluff King Hal. Please do as you will with the sources and text. I look forward to your improvement work! Binksternet (talk) 22:42, 4 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Whatever happens, this will be a great article to get on the mainpage one day, and all effort here makes that more likely. Now to do a helluva lot of reading....Casliber (talk · contribs) 15:13, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Final diff
[1] 151 revisions by 13 users

Comments by others edit

Franz Kafka edit

  • further improvements are here, this may be the final version. (It wasn't, see above) I take the opportunity for thanks to Dr. Blofeld who created many related articles on request. Work on the articles of works by Kafka will go on, there is room for improvement. My favourite part of Kafka is the (hidden) List of selected works, which may eventually grow into his bibliography, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:31, 31 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
and Poseidon (short story), Oskar Pollak, Bohemia (newspaper) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:36, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by judges edit

  • Good choice of article - lead certainly needs redoing (but best to wait until article more reworked..), Personality subsection needs reffing and possibly rebuttal. Most importantly the Published works section is just a list. There should be greater discussion of most important works etc. Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:58, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Notes as of 26 August - needs probably one sentence (or clause) in lede listing his personal religious views if possible..."was better educated than her husband" could possibly be construed as POV, I'd possibly go with "was more (or more highly) educated than her husband"....ensure foreign words are italicised as per MOS on italics.....and see if you can find a more literary-savvy person than me...looks ok....... :) Casliber (talk · contribs) 22:13, 25 August 2012 (UTC)   Done PumpkinSky talk 00:13, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Final diff
[2] 882 revisions by 38 users. 63 to 161 inline references. 4218 to 6977 words.

Comments by others edit

Theory of relativity edit

  • Nominator - Braincricket (talk · contribs)
  • Improvements: forthcoming
  • Comments: early diff, expanding section. I am really disappointed with the amount of improvement (or lack of it) that I was able to do over the past month. I've done a lot of reading, note-taking, and outlining, but precious little writing. I am going to continue to expand the article over the next month, hopefully getting it to GA status. Thanks for organizing this competition! Even though I didn't do as much writing as I had hoped, it drew my attention to the plight of the Relativity article and motivated my research for it. Cheers. Braincricket (talk) 00:23, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by judges edit

  • The "further reading" addition of 11 books is a good foundation for future improvement. Ideally, the salient bits from these books will be brought to the article and cited, moving them one by one into the references. An old but very accessible book, free from maths, is The Einstein Theory Of Relativity by Hendrik Antoon Lorentz, a contemporary of Einstein. He wrote the book for people who are not physicists, so that they could grasp the basics. Here's a bibliography written by a physics professor. Binksternet (talk) 04:24, 4 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Final diff
[3] 21 revisions by 8 users

Comments by others edit

  • Good choice! Over 1 million hits pa, and on the start/C class border. Since the subject is covered by sub-articles like General relativity, I'd aim to keep this at a simple, clear (!?) introductory level). I look forward to trying to read it. Johnbod (talk) 13:15, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the advice, and I completely agree. I think has the potential to be a nice summary-style overview of the whole subject. It's the top result when I google "relativity", so I'd like to gear the article for the curious and uninitiated. All prose, no lists, no math. Braincricket (talk) 13:48, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes - prose is fragmented into point format etc. Good pick of an article which needs major work....(damn, wrong section but looks silly if I place it above and out of order...) Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:00, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Realism (arts) edit

  • Nominator - Johnbod (talk · contribs)
  • Improvements: coming
  • Comments: The plan at the moment This isn't happening - too many French novels I've never read, and Cas seems to think it's nearly ready for FA as it is. But see below.

Comments by judges edit

  • It'd be good to see items in the See also worked into the prose. Ditto the images. Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:03, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not only could the "Visual arts" section use some references, it could use some expansion! Binksternet (talk) 22:47, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Final diff
[4] 1 revision by one user

Comments by others edit

Bow and arrow edit

  • Nominator - Ealdgyth (talk · contribs)
  • Improvements - diff of what it was like when I started. Ealdgyth - Talk 19:39, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments - I've done a round of citations and some improvements, but there is a fundamental problem with this article, as it duplicates a lot of information that strictly speaking should be in either Archery or Arrow or similar articles. It's fully cited now, but I remain ambivalent about actually keeping the article, it might work best as a redirect to archery. Ealdgyth - Talk 19:36, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by judges edit

  • Oh god, where do we start....what am I saying? Great choice! Massive content-work and reffing needed.... Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:04, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • For a start the article should give some indication to the reader that the bow and arrow were extremely important in warfare for centuries. A sense that the bow and arrow was one of the greatest inventions in human history. The Archery article has much that it can lend to this very clunky article. Binksternet (talk) 18:10, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Interesting - reviewing and sorting out what should go at arrow, archery and bow is an improvement of core material I think...but RfCs and proposed moves/merges/rejigs should be open for a month minimum.....still, we can judge the content and issues discovered to be raised are worthwhile too. Casliber (talk · contribs) 22:10, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Final diff
[5] 54 revisions by 10 users

Comments by others edit

Information technology edit

  • Nominator - Malleus Fatuorum (talk · contribs)
  • Improvements - Starting version. Not sure what time/motivation I'll be able to expend on this, but I could hardly make it any worse
  • Comments - level 3 vital article. I've been harassed over mind-numbingly trivial issues almost since this work began, and it's both draining and a complete waste of time. Consequently I'll be doing no more on this article, so this entry should be considered withdrawn. Malleus Fatuorum 17:41, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by judges edit

  • Definitely, the only way is "up" - I don't need to teach Malleus how to suck eggs at this point but later as it develops.....Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:30, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Actually a few ideas crop up - first is this sentence currently in the article - "This article focuses on the latter of those periods, which began in about 1940." - which leads me to ponder what secondary sources do...by its own definition that'd be phase 4 or electronic Information technology - so the other areas need to be discussed as according to what sources do. I also wonder whether Information and communications technology needs to be a separate article.
Back onto main article, Information technology - it should mention job growth/industry and epicentres round the world (India, Silicon Valley mention somewhere) - Information ethics needs a summary (and the daughter article could be expanded...)
I think looking at how books discuss it will give more ideas as well. Bloody hell, could be massive......Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:52, 4 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Secondary sources do pretty much the same, but they ignore the idea that information has been stored, retrieved and manipulated for thousands of years. As for ICT, well, least said soonest mended. Suffice to say that it provides some teachers with jobs. Malleus Fatuorum 04:02, 4 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm disappointed at the petty issues which were raised by Mitch Ames against improvements being made by Malleus. The ultimate goal is the improvement of the encyclopedia, and I think that goal was lost in arguing trivial details. This should not be how Wikipedia is conducted. Binksternet (talk) 18:14, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • I just saw this - all this over a one capital letter?! sigh....could just ignore it and carry on with good stuff - still over a week to go....Casliber (talk · contribs) 10:50, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      Until the next trivial issue is raised, and then the next, and the next ...? No thanks. Malleus Fatuorum 16:22, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Final diff
[6] 199 revisions by 24 users

Comments by others edit

  • Indeed! Another great choice - over 2 million hits pa, which by my calculation is over 1,000 hits per word (my new metric). Johnbod (talk) 01:50, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, at least we'll have an answer now when people as why vital articles don't get improved. Mark Arsten (talk) 18:32, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Great choice indeed. The "Social and ethical perspectives" section needs MUCH work, however. For starters, it misses the entire sociology of the Internet aspect. Digital rights could be mentioned, too. And those are just two things from the top of my head. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 03:41, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Tree edit

  • Nominator - Cwmhiraeth (talk · contribs)
  • Improvements - I have completely rewritten this article. The start version is here and the version at the end of the contest is here. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 12:28, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments - I think the original article was inadequate and way off topic.
    • Unfortunately since I entered this article in the Core Contest it has been reverted to its previous state and edit warring has been taking place. I am merely observing from the sidelines. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:11, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • I had wondered about withdrawing this nomination, but since its initial problems, things seem to have settled down and it now seems stable. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 13:28, 31 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by judges edit

  • What to do now....hmmmm....I think more could be added on evolution of tree-type organisms. I recall reading Colin Tudge who found it hard to believe that the tree structure (as per conifers and angiosperms presumably) could have evolved convergently. Glossopterids are another ancient class of trees. The records section would be good to prosify somehow into a para. Not sure how....Also the See also section is pretty big. I'd have a look at them and see if any needed to be discussed in the text. If they are then they can be omitted here. Fantastic work so far overall! Casliber (talk · contribs) 10:04, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Impressive, but if more can be usefully said summarizing taxonomic groups of trees that would be good; perhaps that overlaps with Cas's point above. How many classes or Orders include trees? Or is that a silly question? The point that "Trees are not a taxonomic group but are a number of plant species that have independently adopted a woody trunk and branches as a way to tower above other plants in full sunlight" could probably be expanded and expressed/repeated more clearly for a general audience. It seems to me that "plant" could be substituted for "tree" at very many places in the article - I'm not sure how much of a problem this is. Johnbod (talk) 15:46, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Cwmhiraeth, if a hybrid/improved article incorporating the best of both comes out of this, this would be a Very Good Thing. If the sources are scrutinised and corrected now, it beats doing it halfway through an FAC. I can understand if you walk away but alot of work's been done and I am sure both of you have good points - I've suggested a way forward so maybe comparing segments and discussing and adding is a way to go. Casliber (talk · contribs) 15:00, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wow, very exciting flurry of action. I think it is good that discussion is underway. Certainly the article has room for improvement, so that's still on the table. Binksternet (talk) 17:23, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Final diff
[7] 118 revisions by 33 users

Comments by others edit

  • Wow. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 09:43, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • My comments are on talk:Tree, where they'll be useful for more than a length of a contest. ☺ The person who reverted the improvements made quite a number of editorial points, some of which turn out, upon inspection, to be valid. Whilst the structural changes are good, there are problems with the information in the article, some of which is contradicted by the sources that apparently support it; with clarity over what content is supported by what source; and with the vagueness of some of the citations. (One citation points to an entire dictionary. I had to guess "tree" as the article in the dictionary, but the content that it purported to support was in fact talking about shrubs. The dictionary didn't actually support what was written in the article, either.) Uncle G (talk) 14:28, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Although I agree that I stuck a reference on the end of the paragraph you were referring to as an afterthought, I did not think that anything in the paragraph was in any way controversial. I had no idea that the statement "A young tree is called a sapling" was going to be an issue. So "Guilty, m'Lud!" The paragraph is excessively referenced now. I don't believe you will find the same problem elsewhere in the article because I was trying very hard to reference everything properly. Anyway, the article is here today but may be gone tomorrow. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 18:11, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Mineral edit

  • Nominator - Maxim (talk · contribs)
  • Improvements - Starting version: [8]; improved version: [9]; diff: [10]
  • Comments - Core topic. Starting version seems to be deficient... in very many places.

Comments by judges edit

  • Agree it's very listy and fragmented. There needs to be alot more encompassing material added. Casliber (talk · contribs) 10:06, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Let's not lose track of the fact that minerals are primarily thought of as solid, even though liquid crystal minerals exist. Binksternet (talk) 02:44, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've explained the definition more in the appropriate section. I'm trying to strike a balance between keeping it accessible to a general audience, and to keep it up-to-date, getting it right, and taking care of pathological cases as necessary. Maxim(talk) 22:43, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Looking today, much improved. lead needs to be larger (include mention of silicate predominance in lead). Make sure isolated sentences are put into nice paragraphs. Casliber (talk · contribs) 08:39, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also - take para 1 of non-silicate section and stick into mineral classes after the single lonely sentence there. Then split non-silicate section and rename subsections after corresponding classes (sulfides, native elements, oxides etc.) Casliber (talk · contribs) 10:11, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Prose is pretty accessible and the article is easy to read (a good thing!) Casliber (talk · contribs) 10:12, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think I've taken care of the suggestions. In terms of expansion, I've taken care of all the basics, but there are a few topics that could still be discussed (mineral environments; advanced techniques). I'll try to work on those, but I'm not sure how far I'll get ahead given my own time constraints, and those relating to the contest. Maxim(talk) 23:11, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • They sound like good ideas. No article is ever "finished", so we just see who got what done in a month...and judge from there :) Casliber (talk · contribs) 07:26, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Final diff
[11] 251 revisions by 19 users. Over this time went from 26 to 132 inline references, and 2437 to 9627 words and got a substantial lead written.

Comments by others edit

Indian subcontinent edit

Comments by judges edit

  • Fascinating choice and major work needed - climate springs to mind, governance historically (nations ancient to modern), as well as a summary and discussion of the indian continental plate. There is alot of overlap with South Asia, yet the above material should help as some is quite subcontinent-specific Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:39, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
 
Indian subcontinent = 4
  • It could be made more clear that the Indian subcontinent was a free-floating island many millions of years ago, slowly separating from Gondwanaland in Pangaea at the South Pole to float north and collide with Asia, the collision forming the Himalayas. The geography section could be expanded with geology information both ancient and current. Binksternet (talk) 02:54, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Very little work is being done on this one. It needs a push forward. Binksternet (talk) 03:32, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Final diff
[12] 30 revisions by 11 users

Alps edit

  • Nominator - Truthkeeper88 (talk · contribs)
  • Before beginning, state of the article on August 3rd: [13]
  • Comments - listed as a vital article. Limited time but will do what I can. Truthkeeper (talk) 17:30, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • State of the article August 30: [14]. Added words and citations.

Comments by judges edit

  • Aaaah, articles with tags atop them...always a good choice. Lots of choppy and rudimentary sections to buff - the fauna section is just a gallery...Tourism, Geology and orogeny and climate sections entirely unreferenced...Geology and orogeny needs a good working up too.Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:56, 4 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Final diff
[15] 598 revisions by 27 users. Prose size from 11 kB (1817 words) to 48 kB (8088 words). Inline references from 10 to 133. Got a lead written in this time.

Comments by others edit

Language edit

  • Nominator - Maunus (talk · contribs)
  • Before beginning, state of the article on July 27th: [16]
  • Comments - listed as a tier 1 vital article. Limited time but will do what I can, mostly adding content and sources - no time for copyediting or other niceties. ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 00:45, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Progress thus far [17] - from 30 to 94 inline citations, and from 14 to 41 works cited, and from 58 to 96kb. I've added content and tried to include as many references to classical "must-read" works and high quality general sources as possible. I've removed some citations that were low quality or too specialized. Since this is a very general level article most statements are quite pedestrian and could be cited to a single source (e.g. Britannica or a general encyclopedia of language), but I have rather tried to cite the main academic works about the particular topic. This means that many of the citations do not have page numbers because the statement cited is the basic premise for the book - for example "All languages have vowels and consonants" - cited to Ladefoged adn Maddieson's "sounds of the world's languages". I presume that for FA these would all require pagenumbers, even though some might make do with passim, type citations. I am a little worried about prose size, because there are still a couple of sections that need to be fleshed out and its already getting close to 100k total. I doubt this one will make it to GA class within the time frame (it will need a good copyedit for prose by a patient native speaker) but I also think it was basically C-class to begin with and not B-class as some projects have apparently assessed it.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 15:04, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I've been working on some of your suggestions today, and made a change to the scope of the article to restrict it to natural human language. It seems to be supported by consensus on the talkpage. That allowed me too cut some 8kb. ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 03:27, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Latest state of progress [18], I think I'm about done. I will only be expanding the sections on language change and language contact. Copyedits are more than appreciated.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 16:18, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Done. [19]. I'm taking a break now.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 15:49, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by judges edit

  • Great choice! More comments to follow...Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:18, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Lots of paragraphs without any citation! A fine opportunity for improvement. Binksternet (talk) 21:44, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • You'll find alot of articles which were rated as B-class a long time ago, before inline referencing was widespread and before we had a C-class rating, so this is a common state of affairs. Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:22, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • (looking at the current version as of now) The Definitions section could be buffed a tiny bit by getting in the OED (or other RS) derivation of the word (from lingua) or wherever, and clarifying who Ferdinand de Saussure with one or two descriptors (e.g. + "Swiss linguist"). You can do that with anyone you introduce by name for the first time. I find it helpful in painting a picture for the reader. Also, try to integrate any isolated single sentences into a paragraph where possible. Where transitive and intransitive are mentioned for the first time they are italicised, which is allowed under the use of italics as words-as-words. I like this (especially in articles where I don't have italicized scientific names everywhere!) but I suspect there are plenty of unitalicised examples throughout the text, so conforming one way or the other would be prudent. Contentwise, has anyone proposed an argument for the progress of a lingua franca (most likely English?) and the benefits? I guess this would be a counterpoint to language extinction. I was also listening to NPR (I think) a few weeks ago with some discussion as to why language extinction was bad in the extinction of the richness of expression of ideas. The article is pretty long but it's an easy read compared with some other articles, and will be trimmed with some copyediting. I hit cntl-F looking for first mention of the word "syntax" and noticed it appeared a lot, and wondered whether there was any reduplication (I might be entirely wrong on this....) Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:46, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Final diff
[20] 517 revisions by 34 users. Prose size 35 kB (5562 words) to 70 kB (11174 words). 30 to 110 inline references.

Comments by others edit

Duns Scotus edit

  • Nominator - Quisquiliae (talk · contribs)
  • State of the article on July 31st : [21]
  • Comments – Should be a tier 3 vital article. Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy and Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy both agree that Scotus is up there with Aquinas and Ockham as the three most important philosophers of the High Scholastic period (c. 1200-1350). The article is in a deplorable state, having suffered from a recent spate of vandalism. Some of the claims are incorrect or misleading. The section on his life needs some work, the sections on his thinking need a wholesale overhaul, plus considerable expansion to justify his notability and importance. The two encyclopedias mentioned above, as well as Britannica, devote proportionately far more space to Scotus than Wikipedia. I have begun by correcting the dates, and by replacing the citation tag around the legend that he was buried alive [22]. More to come, including the premature burial legend, which is purely that. Quisquiliae (talk) 18:04, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Version on 11 August. Many false and misleading or inaccurate claims removed. Considerable additions to the sections on his life, his work, and his reputation, including a nice incunabula picture which I uploaded. 'Expert attention' tags placed on the sections about his thought. I don't have any more time this weekend. In any case, it seems the judges are ignoring this entry - too politically difficult, no? Quisquiliae (talk) 15:02, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by judges edit

  • Hmmm, I don't see this one listed anywhere at Wikipedia:Vital articles, not tier 3 or even tier 4. Of course, your improvements to the article are appreciated—a benefit to the encyclopedia. Binksternet (talk) 16:48, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm actually really surprised. If Aquinas is on there, then so should be Ockham and Scotus. I can understand moving them down to, say, level 4, but them missing from the lists entirely is a huge gap. Where would one go to fix this? SilverserenC 22:01, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've added them to Tier 4 for now. The Middle Ages philosophers section is lacking anyways, having less than half of any of the other Philosophers sections. SilverserenC 22:19, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I think there's a reason for that. There is no requirement that an equal number of philosopher's from each period should be included. I would also like to see some kind of supporting evidence that Duns Scotus is considered to be of primary importance. I think that is one of the ways in which an expert view may be biased - for every academic their particular topic is of vital impoertance.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 22:24, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The problem with Scotus (and Ockham to some extent) is that, while not as well known as Aquinas, they are more or less as philosophically influential as he is. And we should be making these lists based on the overall historical influence and not name popularity. The first line of this book is explanatory, "Duns Scotus is, along with Thomas Aquinas, perhaps the greatest of the medieval theologians and certainly the one who inspired the most interest in the centuries after his death." SilverserenC 02:21, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Certainly the article is a valid entry in this Core Contest. Binksternet (talk) 03:15, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Okay, one reason we have humans as judges is to ascertain articles' broadness - there are no hard and fast rules and no article is "not allowed" but broader articles will be weighted more heavily at the scoring end of the competition. This article has some merit judging by some comments I've seen elsewhere. Casliber (talk · contribs) 22:54, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Final diff
[23] 75 revisions by 9 users

Marie Curie edit

Comments by judges edit

  • Great improvement so far. I think there should be a single disambiguation page hatnote at the top, instead of multiple hatnotes. Binksternet (talk) 17:05, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Great choice - comments to follow....Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:01, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
As of the time I write this, it looks to be shaping up nicely. The prose needs to be melded into longer paragraphs, and some sentences still need citing. Looking at the balance, maybe some more on discoveries (?) - not too familiar with her body of work as a whole...? Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:36, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Final diff
[24] 161 revisions by 15 users

Comments by others edit

Transport edit

  • Comments – Most of the tier-2 article was written by myself back in 2008, but is largely unreferenced. Arsenikk (talk) 14:10, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by judges edit

  • Wow, what a choice! I know there is a history of transport daughter article, but I can't help feeling making chronology more prominent will give the page some more structure. I'd be tempted to move it to the top section under the lead maybe. Otherwise the structure i think comes across as quite listy.....? Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:55, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Final diff
[25] 11 revisions by 8 users

Comments by others edit

Bob Hope edit

  • Nominator - Diannaa (talk · contribs)
  • Improvements - July 29 version
  • Comments - I am adding sources to this level-4 vital article. Large sections were unsourced at the start of the month. I will nominate for GA if enough clean-up can be completed.
  • I completed clean up of the article and nominated for GA on August 17. No one has undertaken the GA review so far. Here's how the article looks today: August 26 version. The number of citations has increased from 71 to 121, and all unsourced material has been removed from the article. If a reviewer shows up before the contest deadline, I'll let you know. -- Dianna (talk) 16:14, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Here is the last version before the deadline. Regards, -- Dianna (talk) 23:27, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by judges edit

  • Interesting choice! Large chunks of the prose need to be melded into longer paragraphs. Content-wise, difficult to say - looks pretty balanced at first glance, but I am not hugely familiar with Hope's career.Maybe more on his friendship with Crosby? That needs to be mentioned in the lead too. Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:51, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for the useful ideas! -- Dianna (talk) 15:19, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Here's hoping...a GA reviewer should give some more tips so hopefully someone will pick it up. Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:27, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Final diff
[26] 77 revisions by 13 users

Comments by others edit

Newborn screening edit


  • Final stats
  • 4360 words
  • 28 kb Prose Size
  • 49 refs


  • I am not sure how competitive this article will be in the final tally, but I enjoyed the contest (mainly the incentive to really buckle down and do something). This article still needs a lot of work, but I think I have been successful in expanding it from an article that was basically just a recitation of the 2006 ACMG report on newborn screening in the US to something that builds the framework for a global article. Canada Hky (talk) 01:13, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments - This article doesn't appear on any of the lists, but it is a test that over 99 % of infants in developed countries undergo shortly after birth, and has been called one of the most important public health initiatives of the 20th century. After a positive result, or need for repeat testing, most parents hit google for info, and this article in its current state could be much more helpful, and global (right now it focuses almost entirely on the US uniform panel, there are significant differences around the world). I have picked away at it in the past, but will try to put in a concerted effort within this contest. Hopefully, I can get something done in the weeks remaining.

Comments by judges edit

  • Has only 15kb of prose as of today, so could easily be doubled without too much fuss as to size. Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:48, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the Core panel section, any discussion on selection (i.e. ones that are very expensive or hard to do, but desirable - arguments/priorities etc.) would be good to add. Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:51, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Final diff
[27] 90 revisions by 2 users

Comments by others edit

  • Currently might as well be renamed to Newborn screening in the United States, when no doubt this is something that varies hugely across the world, and in most of it is not a "public health program", as the first sentence asserts. Lots to do. Annual hits in high 5 figures. Johnbod (talk) 02:26, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • That is what I would like to change, although it is part of public health programs almost all countries. Eventually, it may be necessary to split out certain countries to their own pages, but I would like to improve the core article first. Canada Hky (talk) 23:01, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Stefan Banach edit

  • Nominator - Volunteer Marek (talk · contribs)
  • Improvements - state of article before beginning [28]; I've been thinking of improving this article for awhile now but because of the amount of work required I've been putting this off. This exercise is the perfect excuse to actually get it done.
  • Comments - It's not a Tier 3 but at least should be a Tier 4 (as I mentioned on the talk page, I'm having trouble accessing that list, so I don't know if it's on there or not). Note that Banach was more of a "mathematician's mathematician" rather than a math guy that's known by the general public; he essentially invented Functional Analysis and anyone who studies math beyond the undergrad level knows that first year of math grad school is a lot "Banach stuff". At the same time his work is not "sexy" enough to have made it into pop-math books (like Gödel or Andrew Wiles). Still, a very important article.

Comments by judges edit

  • Mathematics is extremely underrepresented at FA level, so all buffing to articles in this area is a big plus. Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:54, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Final diff
[29] 79 revisions by 5 users

Comments by others edit

  • Only Gödel is among the 40 mathmeticians in Tier 4 - but don't let that put you off. We have 5 stage magicians and 7 chat-show hosts I see. Johnbod (talk) 02:26, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sculpture edit

  • Nominator - Johnbod (talk · contribs)
  • Improvements -
  • Comments - Level 2 vital article, with about 650,000 views a year. Not sure how much I can do in the time. The diffs are complicated because I have merged some stuff from the old History of sculpture here, but the majority of both lots needs rewriting and referencing. Johnbod (talk) 10:39, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Diffs:

Johnbod (talk) 14:09, 31 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Among various other edits elsewhere, Category:Sculpture of the Ancient Near East set up with 40 members, previously scattered over many other categories. Diffusing the new content to many other "main" articles will follow. In September diffusion edits made to: Art of Mesopotamia, Mesopotamia, Chinese art, African art, Art of ancient Egypt, Roman sculpture, Gothic art, Stone sculpture, Wood carving, African sculpture, Mannerism, Modern sculpture, Baroque sculpture, Sculpture in the Indian subcontinent, .... Johnbod (talk) 23:19, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by judges edit

  • A fine choice, for sure. Clunky layout, total lack of referencing in many of the paragraphs, too many galleries... Wow! Binksternet (talk) 18:39, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Final diff
[33] 562 revisions by 11 users

Comments by others edit

Always glad to see such core topics improved! I think the only two core concepts I've worked on were tradition and revolution, and I know how tough they can be. Keep it up! --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 00:53, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment Visual arts articles like Sculpture need visual art - it's not too many, it's never enough, the subject is what words can't say...Modernist (talk) 16:11, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think way too much of this article is dedicated to the history of sculpture. I think you should reinstate History of sculpture, put all the history stuff there, and then replace it in Sculpture with a summary, and then give a lot more weight to the other major aspects of the field, such as materials used, and the way they have been viewed as an artform etc.--Coin945 (talk) 17:00, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
See Talk:Sculpture#Merge_proposal_with_History_of_sculpture. For me a key issue was that Sculpture gets far more hits - 1600-2000 per day vs. 60-100 to the old history. The materials are adequately covered for a top-level article I think. I may have time to add a section on the aesthetics of sculpture - a rather murky topic - and how it has done a points in its battle with painting - a rather difficult one. I think that a high level article like this benefits from a review of the history, although it does take up most of the space. Arguably this is about as summarized a summary of such a huge subject as can usefully be made! Johnbod (talk) 17:44, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I have added some more on fundamental types, and may add more. Johnbod (talk) 20:40, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Page views aren't everything... :) Besides, if what you've put in the article is "about as summarized a summary of such a huge subject as can usefully be made", then that gives the impression that there's lot of valuable information that you've had to cut out for space purposes... wouldn't it be better for all that juicy stuff to be somewhere in Wikipedia, i.e., in a more specialised article? And within the context of this competition, I;m pretty sure that any spin-off/related articled become part of your whole entry.--Coin945 (talk) 03:55, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Page views are very important, especially in the context of the aim of this contest. I haven't cut "valuable information", I just haven't written it up. Much of what I have added, highly summarized as it is, could do with being also added into the "main articles", some of which are very sketchy stubs and not very accurate, but I won't have time to do that in August, nor to add more detailed information to them. I've made changes to many other articles in the area as I go along, but mostly relatively minor corrections not worth collecting diffs for. Our coverage of this whole area is pretty poor; any help improving it would be very welcome. Johnbod (talk) 11:53, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Cabbage edit

  • Comments - Still working on it a bit, but the main frame is there. The rewrite cut a bunch of trivia, referenced everything, replaced a bunch of unreliable refs, etc. Suggestions on further improvements are welcome, as I'd like to take this to GAN and eventually FAC. Thanks! Dana boomer (talk) 23:20, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by judges edit

  • Great work. I think it would be interesting to see some information on annual consumption per capita by country. For instance, cabbage consumption in South Korea was 63 kg (139 lb) per person in 2008,[34] while similar figures in the USA show about 1/20th of that.[35] China eats about 2/3rds the amount of cabbage per person as Korea does.[36] Other numbers: Russia: 20 kg; The Netherlands: 4 kg; Spain 1.9 kg; Belgium: 4.7 kg. But don't let me distract you from your own plan! Binksternet (talk) 02:09, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for the links! The South Korea one appears to be talking about Chinese cabbage, which is a different species (Brassica rapa, subspecies pekinensis and chinensis), unless I'm missing something in the PDF that also discusses B. oleracea. The Chinese source also appear to be talking about either Chinese cabbage or brassicas in general, I'm not completely sure from the source. I've integrated the other two sources. Dana boomer (talk) 17:34, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Needs a link to Red cabbage somwhere. Also any info on relations to other B. oleracea cultivars (just brief though, the species page should have the bulk of it). Oops, just saw Cultivars section - this needs to be expanded and de-listified. There are few broad varieties so some more can be written about each I think. It is a souirce of fibre, but is it high fibre or just average....any cultural depictions or popculture references....? Just some initial thoughts on content based on a look today. Casliber (talk · contribs) 10:45, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are two links to red cabbage (in the infobox and in the cultivars section), plus a few other mentions of red/purple cabbage when describing different types. The first paragraph of the Taxonomy and etymology section is where I was putting information on the relationships between cabbage and other B. oleracea varieties (cauliflower, broccoli, etc.). The cultivars section is for cultivars within the cabbage variety, and I was basing it on the format of Lettuce. I personally think the list format works, but if you have additional information that you think should be present, I'm all ears. Just regular fiber, from what I can find. Can't find anything encyclopedic/notable/whatever about cabbage in popular culture. There are a few bits and pieces here and there, but nothing that discusses them as a whole or that gives them in the context of how important they are to an understanding of cabbage. I have integrated a couple of other new sources, though, and nominated the article for GAN. Dana boomer (talk) 19:03, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Final diff
[37] 40 revisions by 14 users

Comments by others edit

Good job. I would like to see more on culinary usage (it is used in many Polish cuisine dishes). --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 00:51, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Understatement alert! And very nice they make it taste too. Johnbod (talk) 01:04, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks guys! I've added some to the culinary usage section on Eastern European (especially Polish) usage and usage in the US. I'm trying to walk the line between the previous version (which was basically how-to ingredient listings for several dozen cabbage dishes) and a minimalist "cabbage is used all over the world in lots of different dishes" approach. Further comments on how well I'm walking this line would be appreciated :) Dana boomer (talk) 01:56, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I think you've got the balance about right. And you've explained something that I've never understood until now; I love raw cabbage in things like coleslaw, or that Chinese "seaweed" starter, but I hate boiled cabbage with a passion. Malleus Fatuorum 02:36, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
To avoid the culinary section taking over, you may want to split it into a new article. This will create the outlet for this when the need arises.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 03:39, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think that creating a new article (which, AFAIK, would be the first of its kind, since I've never seen Corn in cuisine or Strawberries in cuisine) is the solution here. A list of a gazillion recipes that use cabbage would not be an encyclopedic article, and at this point, the section, which is relatively complete and properly encyclopedic, is nowhere near the point where it needs to be split. Dana boomer (talk) 19:03, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Amphibian edit

  • Comments - This is a work in progress and improvements so far include expansion and better referencing. Way to go yet but I am hard at it! Cwmhiraeth (talk) 13:20, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by judges edit

  • I can see you've almost doubled the size of the article, re-organized it, and plowed the linkfarm at the bottom. Good going! Binksternet (talk) 22:04, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Great choice - I can see the Larvae subsection looks a little funny empty, given there is stuff in the eggs section above. Are there any global statements you can make about larvae? Also, maybe a short note on invasive amphibians (Cane toad is the only one that springs to mind immediately, there may be others.....probably few enough across the whole class to put in) Maybe mention the biggest ones like Eryops somewhere..then copyediting will trim down a bit I think as article is largish.....none of these are deal-breakers but things to think about. Looks like it's worth a Good Article nom soonish...Casliber (talk · contribs) 22:57, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    There are several sections that I hope to expand/improve by the end of the month. I will work on some of the points you raise. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 12:24, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Final diff
[38] 97 revisions by 17 users

Comments by others edit

Crusades edit

  • Nominator - Ealdgyth (talk · contribs)
  • Improvements - diff is what it looked like when I started.
  • Comments - Continuing my trend of dealing with medieval subjects, I've started in on this article, which is... frankly, scary. Gets about 100,000 page views a month. Ealdgyth - Talk 19:38, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by judges edit

  • An heroic effort! With page views like that, the article is a terrific candidate for improvement. Binksternet (talk) 21:50, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Final diff
[39] 79 revisions by 8 users

Comments by others edit

  • I always thought of this as Adam Bishop country, but I see he hasn't edited it since last November. He certainly knows the subject, & is still around. Johnbod (talk) 20:39, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Adam and I have worked together reasonably well in the past, and I don't fear that if I muck something up, he'll call me up short if I deserve it. The article looks okay on the surface, but it really lacks referencing, and has a few problems of undue weight. We'll see how far I get... Ealdgyth - Talk 20:55, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Shrimp and prawn edit

  • Nominator - Epipelagic (talk · contribs)
  • Improvements: This late, maybe too late entry is a replacement for the former tier-4 vital article "Shrimp", which originally looked like this. It also replaces the former article "Prawn", which originally looked like this.
  • Comments: The need for this article arose from this discussion. The former shrimp article has been renamed Caridea and the former prawn article has been renamed Dendrobranchiata. The nominated article, which Shrimp and Prawn now redirect to, is essentially a new article, not a merge. With its redirects, it get over 3,000 views a day. It needs more content expansion and a lot of cleaning up, so with three days to go... --Epipelagic (talk) 23:29, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
@Binksternet: The article replaces the old shrimp and prawn articles, which now redirect to this new article. So you could regard it as starting from those articles, though very little is used from those articles, because they were misconceived. I assumed the contest is based on absolute value added, rather than a percentage of initial value added which would unnecessarily tilt the contest by making it much easier to start with a small (or zero) article. --Epipelagic (talk) 04:10, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by judges edit

  • The article makes for an interesting conundrum for the contest judges. We base our score on a number of things including improvement of the article starting from its pre-August state. This article was started in August, so it instantly had infinity percent increase. I welcome the challenge of reviewing the article but I don't yet have an answer for the puzzle. Binksternet (talk) 03:23, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
True - maybe a holistic approach and looking at the separate components. Sorting out article groups like this is a Good Thing overall too. Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:04, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Final status
  • New combined article at the end of 31 August: [40]
  • Old Shrimp article at the end of 31 July: [41]
  • Old Prawn article at the end of 31 July: [42]

Comments by others edit

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:The_Core_Contest/Entries/AprilMay2023_archive/August2012_archive&oldid=1161352506"