This page has archives. Sections older than 14 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 4 sections are present.
Welcome to the 2025 WikiCup!
Happy New Year and Happy New WikiCup! The 2025 competition has just begun and all article creators, expanders, improvers and reviewers are welcome to take part. Even if you are a novice editor, we hope the WikiCup will give you a chance to improve your editing skills as you go. If you have already signed up, your submissions page can be found here. If you have not yet signed up, you can add your name here and the judges will set up your submissions page ready for you to take part. Any questions on the scoring, rules or anything else should be directed to one of the judges, or posted to the WikiCup talk page.
For the 2025 WikiCup, we've implemented several changes to the scoring system. The highest-ranking contestants will now receive tournament points at the end of each round, and final rankings are decided by the number of tournament points each contestant has. If you're busy and can't sign up in January, don't worry: Signups are now open throughout the year. To make things fairer for latecomers, the lowest-scoring contestants will no longer be eliminated at the end of each round.
How do I add a picture of the person’s Wikipedia page if I have permission from the owner of the picture. Like is there some where I can show that I have proof that I permission to use that picture? --Hiro1771 (talk) 18:56, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for taking time to provide feedback on the Hav Syn article. I'm wondering if you'd be willing to step aside and let another reviewer do the review? I'm concerned about a few things:
You are focusing on a minor essay WP:PROSELINE... its not even a policy, let alone a guideline.
You asked for 4 paragraphs in lede. That was never a hard requirement for FA, let alone GA. Also, the 4 paragr suggestion was removed from WP:LEDE in 2024.
You say that GAC requires uniform citation formats; that is not correct .. FA require uniform cite foarmats.
@Noleander If you would like a different person to review your article I'd ask WT:GAN as that is usually how new reviewers are requested. The other option would be for me to fail the review, you renominate, and then eventually someone else picks up the review and decides if you have improved on the parts that led me to fail the article. However I'll expand on my points thusfar.
While WP:PROSELINE is not a guidline, it is a word to explain bad prose. Clear and concise prose is apart of the GAC. Issues like PROSELINE make the article harder to read, hence why in it's current state I would not say the prose passes criteria 1.
The lead thing was more of a suggestion and I guess I could have worded things better. Part of the GAC is complying with the layout section of the MOS which states Single-sentence paragraphs can inhibit the flow of the text; by the same token, long paragraphs become hard to read. The lead you had before, with 5 paragraphs, included one paragraph that was a single setence which goes against the MOS.
Criterion 2 requires compliance with MOS:LAYOUT, the MOS:LAYOUT section MOS:REFERENCES says: Editors may use any citation method they choose, but it should be consistent within an article.. I'd be willing to discuss the plaintext citations however the bare urls do need to be fixed.
It's not uncommon for reviewers and nominators to disagree, however I would ask that you stay open to discussing these disagreements instead of just requesting I step down as a reviewer as these kinds of disagreements are going to happen regardless of who is reviewing. IntentionallyDense(Contribs)03:49, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I just figured out you were using MLA formatted citations most likely so while I do believe consistant citation formatting is apart of GAN criteria I misspoke about the bare url part. Apologies for that. IntentionallyDense(Contribs)04:00, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Okay I’m going to do a full review as the article doesn’t meet QF criteria and so that the next reviewer can more easily evaluate if you were able to resolve the issues that lead me to failing the article. This may take a me a couple days. IntentionallyDense(Contribs)17:12, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hello. Your account has been granted the "pending changes reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on pages protected by pending changes. The list of articles awaiting review is located at Special:PendingChanges, while the list of articles that have pending changes protection turned on is located at Special:StablePages.
Being granted reviewer rights neither grants you status nor changes how you can edit articles. If you do not want this user right, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time.
