Wikipedia talk:WikiCup

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
WikiCup (WP:CUP)
WikiCup content needing review
view • edit

Featured content

Good Topic Candidates

Featured pictures

DYK

GAN

PR

GAN reviewer points[edit]

Could you please, please consider increasing the number of points contestants can gain for doing GAN reviews? The current backlog drive is collapsing under the pressure of new submissions and people are getting discouraged. Since a great number of nominations are coming from WikiCup participants, it seems fair, and also would be a huge help, if we could get more reviews being done by WikiCup contestants. -- asilvering (talk) 15:58, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

So, a follow up question, what would happen to FAR points if the points for GANR were increased? Hey man im josh (talk) 16:09, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I say hike them both. -- asilvering (talk) 16:17, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The backlog "collapse" is less down to general discouragement and more down to one user nominating 64 articles in the past week. That said, I would support changing to 10 points (?) at this year's contest end. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 17:01, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't say it was caused by discouragement; I said it was causing discouragement. -- asilvering (talk) 17:15, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • @AirshipJungleman29 and Asilvering: The better fix would be to go to a system like this month's backlog drive where for every 2500 words in length of the article there is a bonus. All three of my reviews were for articles under 10k characters. I was looking at the Queensboro Bridge since I once lived at 417 E. 60th (between 1st and York, the first place I moved when I moved off of a friends couch), but that article is 60k+ characters.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 18:30, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah, sorry about that, it has quite the long history and I really couldn't help myself. – Epicgenius (talk) 14:46, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
WTF, Tony!? I'd really like to see you do as many reviews as you do nominations; it only seems fair as you're asking for a hell of a lot of reviewers' time which is definitely a limited resource. That said the number of reviews in the backlog drive does seem down from previous years. My own paltry number is something like fourth highest.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 18:49, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't call Tony out in particular because I don't really think we can say any one nominator is to blame, even if they submit literally dozens of articles at once. We want as many articles as possible to become good articles, right? Since that's our aim, I wouldn't want to discourage anyone from submitting, unless they were mass-submitting articles that definitely aren't GA-worthy. I'd much prefer that we encouraged quality reviews instead, and wikicup looks like a good place to do that, especially since it encourages editors to submit GANs. -- asilvering (talk) 20:26, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You're not wrong, but it is discouraging to see so much progress in eliminating the backlog wiped out all at once.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 00:50, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That would be a good idea if there is consensus for it. However, even with consensus, I think any change to FAC/GAN reviewer points would have to occur starting with the 2025 WikiCup - it would be very unwieldy to change the rules in the middle of the year. – Epicgenius (talk) 14:46, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Absolutely has to wait until next year.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 15:23, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Of course, but that will be a good improvement for next year.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 15:30, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Epicgenius why not at the start of a round? Don't the points reset back to zero every round? -- asilvering (talk) 02:27, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It would be unfair to have one set of rules for one round and another set of rules for a round immediately after that. There would also be logistical hurdles in updating the bot to recognize the new rules (especially as the bot's maintainer isn't very active), as well as notifying contestants of the updated rules. This is especially so because we're talking about a substantial change in the way that points would be calculated. For simplicity, it's best to just change the rules in between years, rather than between rounds. Epicgenius (talk) 02:36, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough. -- asilvering (talk) 02:48, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Traditionally the WikiCup has provided more reviews than nominations. I am not fully convinced that increasing points for reviews is necessary, but certainly points should not go above 10. —Kusma (talk) 16:44, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't really think GAN reviews need to be capped at 10. I could see a range of bonuses fanning across a 5-15 point spectrum for GAN reviews based article length since this would still be less than half of the GAN point value itself even without any GAN bonus/multiplier. A long review, like the Queensboro Bridge one that I mentioned above would take considerably more effort than any of the 3 shorties I am doing. In fact, it would take more work than all three of my backlog reviews combined. I would have no ill will toward someone earning 15 points for such a review. Review adequacy requirements should be more extensive for the higher point value reviews however.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 17:44, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Who is supposed to check these requirements? Reviewing the reviews doesn't just magically happen, it takes time. Reviewing can be done with little preparation and does not require research, so it is a lot easier than writing decent new articles. —Kusma (talk) 18:04, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
When done correctly, reviewing does require research to decide if an article meets criterion 3(a) (broad): for instance, at Talk:The Star Beast (Doctor Who)/GA1 I had to research whether sources existed to cover certain aspects of the topic not discussed in the article. — Bilorv (talk) 13:27, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'll be very honest: having recently begun reviewing FLCs (though admittedly without having yet dipped my toe into FACs), I have found featured reviewing to be easier than GAN reviewing. The fact that there are multiple reviewers at FXC means that any one reviewer can choose to focus on ensuring compliance with a specific portion of the criteria if they so desire; meanwhile at GAN, each nomination is generally reviewed by only one editor, putting the onus on that sole reviewer to make sure the article being nominated complies with an entire set of criteria, even if the GA criteria are less stringent than the FA or FL criteria. (Not to say I don't still enjoy reviewing GANs, though – it's a great opportunity to learn about the subject of the article, and I've been mulling over calling dibs on a couple noms.) Dylan620 (he/him • talk • edits) 16:59, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Open season on qfing me[edit]

There is an overzealous posse of editors quickfailing my articles. I don't think all of them should be getting CUP points. The latest and by far the most egregious is Talk:Michael Schofield (American football)/GA2. This article is better than the last GA promotion in sports that was not one of my own articles (Jerry Atkinson (American football). It has been qfed twice within a span of hours. There are several other QFs that are quite dubious. I feel the new sport on WP is redefining proximity to WP:WIAGA for the purposes of failing my articles.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 07:18, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please keep in mind WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS . ‍  Elias 🪐  (dreaming of Saturn; talk here) 08:21, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Quickfails do not receive points, TonyTheTiger. Would you like to apologise for your explicit and implied accusations? Or, I suppose you could nominate another bunch of articles you haven't edited in close to a decade and act surprised and persecuted when most of them are low-quality. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 08:45, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
People have been getting points for quickfails. Some of them are quite proximal to WIAGA, like the one above.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 11:57, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You have been overzealously nominating a huge amount of underprepared articles, apparently in a push for WikiCup points. This kind of behaviour is bad for the WikiCup and its reputation in the general community. —Kusma (talk) 11:03, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Not all of the quickfails are beyond the proximal zone to WP:WIAGA. Where that zone lies is subjective. But I have submitted those that I think are within appropriate proximity to WIAGA.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 12:01, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The community can handle a few underprepared nominations and reviewers can then help push them over the line. It is unreasonable to expect that the community can handle a dozen underprepared nominations from a single nominator. You are currently getting an unexpectedly low amount of backlash for this, so let me be clear: you, TTT, are doing something that is not in the spirit of the WikiCup, and in my view the WikiCup coordinators should think about whether you should be competing at all. The WikiCup is about writing new and improved articles, it is not a place where you score points for bulk nominating your work from a decade ago. —Kusma (talk) 12:58, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Tony, come on. are you seriously saying you think Mekia Cox (my review here) was even slightly close to meeting the GA criteria? or United Nations Honour Flag (review here)? or Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, for which Epicgenius removed the nomination because it was so far from meeting the criteria? sawyer * he/they * talk 18:03, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Not going to lie, this affair has definitely made me question why I'm participating in the Cup. If it's going to incentivise people to bludgeon the process with bad articles that they haven't worked on in years, just to scrounge imaginary internet points, that reflects very poorly on the competition. This isn't why I edit... --Grnrchst (talk) 16:58, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Most participants are not like that. I am not playing to win, and I doubt I am the only one. Overall, the Cup results in a decent improvement of the encyclopaedia every year. —Kusma (talk) 17:23, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Have you considered that your nominations are being quick-failed because the articles don't meet the GA criteria? Skyshiftertalk 11:56, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
QFiing is not for failing articles that do not meet WP:WIAGA. It is for failing articles that are "long way from meeting any one of the six good article criteria". They don't have to meet WIAGA, they have to be close.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 12:05, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, your quick-failed nominations were a "long way from meeting any one of the six good article criteria" (more than one in most cases) Skyshiftertalk 13:11, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Kusma, I couldn't disagree with you more. The coordinators shouldn't "think about" whether Tony should be competing – they should immediately remove him from the competition, and ban him from entering in the future until he demonstrates he understands overwhelming volunteer editors with mass GA nominations, many with obvious issues (this one I quickfailed just now had a large unsourced and promotional section), is rude and disruptive. – Teratix ₵ 14:34, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is not the first time Tony has sought to disrupt other WP processes for his own gain in the WikiCup. Back in 2011, the then-judges @J Milburn and The ed17: testified at ANI that there was "a long-term pattern of questionable actions from TTT", who had "caused issues at WP:FPC, WP:VPC and caused problems with mass nominations at DYK (which reflected very poorly on the WikiCup, in which he was participating)". I think that editors are unanimous that Tony's attitude is "creating a negative atmosphere", which, per Wikipedia:WikiCup/Scoring, is enough to remove him from the Cup. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 14:56, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Given my previous involvement in bringing up this issue on Tony's talk page, I'll refrain from making a unilateral decision on this. I think Cwmhiraeth and Frostly should be apprised of this, however, as this recent conduct does seem poor enough to be disqualifying. Epicgenius (talk) 15:24, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I concur with Epicgenius' view of the situation. TonyTheTiger, please slow down and ensure that the articles you are nominating are of sufficient quality, and that you have the capacity to adequately respond to concerns brought up in all your GANs. — Frostly (talk) 01:54, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Looking at the quickfails, some of the articles would be close to meeting the GA criteria if they were revised and updated. However, there is no obligation for a reviewer to pass an article, or place it on hold, if it is a long way from meeting any one of the GA criteria. To pick just one example, the review of 1000M by Teratix above, that article does qualify for a quickfail because of the existence of an unsourced section, promotional text, and the fact that there doesn't seem to be a history section at all (therefore also failing GA's broadness criterion).
Multiple people have attempted to tell you this on your talk page, but it seems you have not heeded their advice. I'm sorry Tony, but you really should go over your remaining nominations to check whether the remaining criteria. Otherwise, the coordinators will be having a conversation about your continued participation in the WikiCup. Epicgenius (talk) 14:59, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I did not see mention of a history section at Talk:1000M/GA1. I addressed the problematic content.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 21:10, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I just quickfailed 1000M for the second time. It is an article about a skyscraper nearing completion in 2024. The most recent source cited is from 2020. The second most recent source cited is from 2019. The skyscraper's height was changed in the meantime (for a second time, apparently), and the architect died... This just isn't OK, TTT isn't a complete newbie but is asking to be treated like one. —Kusma (talk) 19:56, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As stated above, Talk:1000M/GA1 did not say any of this in the review. It only stated that it had problematic content.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 21:13, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
But if you've received a quick fail it's a comment by the reviewer that the article needs a lot of work. You took that feedback and... resubmitted?! -- asilvering (talk) 21:16, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well, you see TonyTheTiger only has "one pair of hands"—no point getting the "one brain" in to actually think about what they're doing. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 21:45, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I responded to the entirety of the stated concerns. I am not a mind-reader. In hindsight, it is easy to say you should have understood there were other issues.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 21:48, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It is not the reviewer's job to give you a checklist of everything that is wrong in your article, but it is your job to present an article that you think complies with the criteria. Are you saying you need to be told to check sources newer than 2020 for articles about a building finished in 2024? —Kusma (talk) 21:41, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
My concern is that, with the most recent nominations that have been quickfailed, Tony is only putting in the barest amount of effort toward resolving any issues that have been raised. The 1000M article is a good example of this - the nomination was failed for unsourced info, so it was then renominated after a few edits that removed the issue. However, the other points raised (including the presence of out-of-date info and the lack of a history section) were still not addressed before nomination. At this point, I do not think this is just a CUP problem but a WP:GAN problem at large. It's a shame, as Tony is clearly capable of creating well-written articles, but we may have a larger problem on our hands with these most recent nominations. – Epicgenius (talk) 20:02, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
User:Epicgenius, the review (Talk:1000M/GA1) said nothing about history and out of date content or I would have addressed it. I addressed the stated concern.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 21:51, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Quickfails don't cover every part of the article. That's what makes them "quick"-fails, it's for when there is too much to reasonably cover in an exhaustive review. Asking a reviewer to describe every individual thing wrong with an article is unreasonable; it's unloading your work and responsibility fully onto them. You don't have to be a mind-reader, you just need to know what the GA criteria is and whether your article fully covers it. I never nominate anything unless I have read it over closely and corrected any mistakes. Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 21:56, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@TonyTheTiger, it's not about merely addressing the concerns that are brought up in the GA review. It is the nominator's responsibility to make sure that the article meets WP:GACR, and that the information in question is in the article, before it's nominated for GA. Otherwise we would have a situation where people repeatedly nominate poor-quality articles for GA just so they could get feedback. – Epicgenius (talk) 21:57, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately I agree that TonyTheTiger should be removed from the competition as it is clear the Cup is directly providing motivation for these nominations that multiple independent volunteers have deemed inadequate. Other action may also be needed. — Bilorv (talk) 15:28, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
i also agree that Tony should be disqualified from the Cup. this whole trainwreck has completely disrupted our processes over at GAN, and enough is enough. sawyer * he/they * talk 18:11, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@TonyTheTiger you would do well to respond to the comments here. sawyer * he/they * talk 19:33, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree TonyTheTiger should be disqualified from the WikiCup because it has incentivized him to nominate of dozens of extremely low-quality articles for GA, disrupting the process. Skyshiftertalk 18:22, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I note Tony's observation near the top of this section that People have been getting points for quickfails – I agree with him that this is problematic in itself, and I think those whom have claimed GANR points based on quickfails may wish to consider removing those GANRs from their submissions pages. That being said, the conduct of Tony himself is quite obviously the main issue here. I am dismayed by what I perceive as a lack of accountability to the community for his behavior this week pertaining to his mass nominations. I have seen him refer to 2010 as the last time he participated in the WikiCup; as AirshipJungleman29 refers to above, Tony disrupted the WikiCup back then by causing issues at DYK similar to what he has been doing at GAN recently. I unfortunately must agree with the above editors calling for him to be disqualified from the WikiCup. Dylan620 (he/him • talk • edits) 19:50, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
having discussed the issue of quickfails getting points with @Epicgenius (courtesy ping), quickfails are generally not eligible for points at all, because they're usually by nature very short & incomplete. the majority of quickfails do not get points, and i'd like to see Tony give some examples of quickfails that have gotten points which shouldn't have. that said, the judges have the discretion to give points for quickfails which are more complete than usual, and this happens occasionally. sawyer * he/they * talk 20:02, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I should note that in the concurrent backlog drive at GAN, QFs do receive points. -- asilvering (talk) 20:23, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I should note that WP:WC/SCO does say Only reviews of a sufficient length will be counted; quick fails and very short reviews will generally not be awarded points. However, the judges may still choose to award points to GAN fails of sufficient length. This rule exists to prevent contestants from writing 2-sentence quick fails and claiming points for these. – Epicgenius (talk) 20:04, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you both for clarifying. I've struck the first two sentences of my above post. Dylan620 (he/him • talk • edits) 20:18, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is getting ridiculous. Overzealous by what metric? A QF means the reviewer thinks it would take a large amount of work to bring up to the GA standard. If you're getting QFs back to back on the same article in a number of hours, how are we to take this as anything other than contempt for the process? I QF'd one of yours, Humble and Kind. What even is this? How could anyone who's been through the GA process even once think that this is within striking distance of GA? -- asilvering (talk) 20:32, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Honestly, I don't find it much different in quality than my 2022 GA for "Sheesh!", except for the one current tag.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 20:41, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm gobsmacked. -- asilvering (talk) 20:45, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
then perhaps "Sheesh!" shouldn't have been passed at GAN either. sawyer * he/they * talk 20:46, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's significantly better than Humble and Kind - have a look for yourself. -- asilvering (talk) 20:47, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
i did look, and i agree it's significantly better, although i'd probably place it on hold if i were reviewing it today - regardless, i don't know how anyone could look at Humble and Kind and think it's more than start-class. sawyer * he/they * talk 20:49, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I know I'm going off on a tangent here, but to be fair to Tony, Humble and Kind is substantial enough to be a C-class article rather than start-class. However, it would still need work to be improved to GA-class, especially considering the active maintenance tag and the brevity of the sections that do exist. For example, four of the sections are three sentences or fewer; it may be worth either expanding these paragraphs or combining the sections. It also does not look like there's been any significant work on this article since 2017, when the maintenance tag in question was added. – Epicgenius (talk) 21:55, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think this is on the border but perhaps Start-class still. I imagine that sources exist to significantly expand the song's composition and recording, musical analysis of the major versions and other relevant information. — Bilorv (talk) 23:30, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
WP:RATER thinks it's C-class but isn't dead sure. I'd rate it as Start according to the WP:MILHIST criteria. But at any rate, no one's here saying it's a "B-class or higher". -- asilvering (talk) 23:37, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
perhaps i'm stricter than most haha, but assessments below GA are pretty arbitrary anyways. the single-sentence section with a nearly 7-year-old expansion tag is really what gets me. sawyer * he/they * talk 23:46, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am trying to respond to articles. I only have one pair of hands. I have been responding to Heath Irwin, Michael Schofield (American football), Kenny Demens and 1000M. I am willing to relook at all articles more than say 3 years old.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 20:38, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I only have one pair of hands. Have you considered not having 62 concurrent nominations? – Hilst [talk] 20:49, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • I have had dozens of articles at WP:GAN at the same time in the past without problems, so I did not expect to have such a big disagreement on proximity to WP:WIAGA.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 21:04, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      it's not a disagreement on proximity to the criteria. i don't know the quality of your past mass nominations, but many of the articles you're nominating this time are barely scraping start or C class. you need to listen to the feedback you're receiving, and stop nominating articles. your consistent "i don't hear that" behavior is extraordinarily frustrating, disruptive, and a waste of the community's time and effort. sawyer * he/they * talk 21:11, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Yes, just like how in 2011 you had dozens of nominations at DYK and Featured Sounds, and how in 2011 you consistently renominated articles at FAC while putting the barest minimum effort into working on them between nominations, and how you got TBANned for that, and how you somehow forgot that the community considered it disruptive TonyTheTiger? You are the primary reason that the WikiCup is looked down upon in many parts of Wikipedia, and now you want to do it all again. Entitled and selfish. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 21:54, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    You need to stop nominating so many articles. It looks as if you are nominating articles that need quite a lot of work. You need to do that work, not ask your reviewers to do it for you or spell out for you what exactly needs doing. GAN reviewers are not there to help you gain WikiCup points. In many cases like 1000M, it is obvious that the article needs work, yet you nominated it for GA twice. If you are so out of touch, you have to listen to the feedback you receive, not make your own random rules ("I am willing to relook at all articles more than say 3 years old" -- you need to look at all the articles and fix all of them). You should withdraw all your recent nominations, fix the articles, then nominate them again (if you get the chance; I think it is not unlikely you will end up topic banned). —Kusma (talk) 20:52, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Update: Three of these articles (Schofield, Demens and 1000M) have been quickfailed a second time. – Hilst [talk] 21:55, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Tony has just readded a highly promotional section of 1000M that he had previously removed from the article. it's not unsourced anymore, but it's still not acceptable at all in terms of tone and directly copies the cited source - why ??? this is ridiculous sawyer * he/they * talk 22:02, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Wow, that is hilarious! I tag the article for close paraphrasing, and then Tony decides that the best thing to do is add a load of close paraphrasing back into the article? What is this guy doing?? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 22:05, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Close paraphasing
Sources Closely paraphrased Wikipedia article
an acoustically engineered music performance room overlooking Grant Park, a yoga room with a wall-sized video screen for an immersive experience of doing yoga or meditating in (for example) a mountaintop setting, and a golf simulator room where the concierge can set up tee times at virtual versions of some of the world's top courses

an outdoor swimming pool, cabanas, cookout areas and gardens

Club 1000, an adjacent full-service bar and lounge, features a sky terrace with telescopes and sculpture benches that overlook the lake.

Amenities include an acoustically engineered music performance room overlooking Grant Park, a yoga room with a wall-sized video screen for an immersive experience of doing yoga or meditating, and a golf simulator room where the concierge can set up tee times at virtual versions of some of the world's top courses.

There will also be Himalayan salt therapy room and an outdoor swimming pool with cabanas, a cookout area and gardens.

On the 72nd floor, Club 1000, a full-service bar and lounge, will feature a sky terrace with telescopes and sculpture benches that overlook Lake Michigan.

  • I'm getting a little off-topic here, but this is a major improvement compared with what was there before. I certainly would not quick fail the article if that section were the only problem (I would've said something like Amenities include golf simulators, yoga, and performance spaces, but the bigger issue is the close paraphrasing mentioned above. Just something to keep in mind if this were sent back to GAN. – Epicgenius (talk) 22:09, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    yeah it's absolutely better than the original paragraph, but if one is going to improve an article, one should follow our P&Gs about close paraphrasing/copying sources and promotional tone. tony has been here for over 17 years and has no shortage of GAs & FAs; he clearly knows how to write good content and put in the required effort. sawyer * he/they * talk 22:14, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is currently an ANI thread about whether Tony should be topic banned from the WikiCup. Many of the participants in this thread have already commented there, but I am noting it here for posterity. – Epicgenius (talk) 18:54, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Also noting that, due to the complaints elucidated both here and at ANI about Tony's conduct, I've withdrawn him from the Cup. – Epicgenius (talk) 13:53, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Core Contest Returns![edit]

Hi all—The Core Contest returns! Leaving this here:

The Core Contest—Wikipedia's most exciting contest—returns again this year from April 15 to May 31. The goal: to improve vital or other core articles, with a focus on those in the worst state of disrepair. There is £300 of prize money divided among editors who provide the "best additive encyclopedic value". Signups are open now. Cheers from the judges, Femke, Casliber, Aza24. – Aza24 (talk) 23:30, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Competitive[edit]

After reviewing previous years this years cup seems to be far more competitive, for instance the distance between the highest losing score and lowest passing score is 3 points. 32 to 31 is also 3 points and 31 to 30/29 is four points. Last round a minimum of 30 points was needed to pass. This round only 11 people haven't scored. Kusma currently ranked six is one GAR away from reaching the top five. Thought this was interesting anyone else notice any fun details?. Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 19:26, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As of now, it takes 75 points to qualify for round 3. If the round ended today, this would be tied for the 7th highest amount of points required to make it to round 3. I started on a couple tables in the beginning of February for Wikicup stats: User:Hey man im josh/Wikicup stats. Hey man im josh (talk) 19:31, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As of now 87 points. Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 22:50, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Disqualification[edit]

@Epicgenius, Frostly, and Cwmhiraeth: I don't think that it is a good idea to mark disqualifications as withdrawn. It makes it seem like the removal was voluntary. I would recommend using the eliminated designation instead. QuicoleJR (talk) 23:06, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I second this idea Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 23:24, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I explained this at the ANI discussion, but I use the red background for competitors who have been disqualified at the end of the round, because they didn't receive enough points. The purple background is for competitors who have been removed in the middle of the round, either voluntarily or not. In either case, the net effect is the same; Tony will not be progressing to the next round of the Cup. – Epicgenius (talk) 23:25, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In that case, maybe call it "Withdrawn or disqualified" in the key to remove the ambiguity? QuicoleJR (talk) 23:58, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, I can do that. – Epicgenius (talk) 01:31, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that sounds reasonable. — Frostly (talk) 22:07, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with the withdrawn background, as it separates participants removed for logistical reasons (voluntary or involuntary withdrawal) and participants eliminated at the end of the round based on points. — Bilorv (talk) 23:27, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiCup&oldid=1217789098"