This is an archive of past discussions with User:Mukkakukaku. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
Invitation to join WikiProject United States
Hello, Mukkakukaku/Spr-2011! WikiProject United States, an outreach effort supporting development of United States related articles in Wikipedia, has recently been restarted after a long period of inactivity. As a user who has shown an interest in United States related topics we wanted to invite you to join us in developing content relating to the United States. If you are interested please add your Username and area of interest to the members page here. Thank you!!!
The year 2011 has brought many changes to the State of Colorado. We have a new Governor and other state officers, two new U.S. Representatives, many new state legislators, and a new Mayor of Denver. WikiProject Colorado is updating many Colorado articles. Many Colorado places, people, and organizations need new articles. Portal:Colorado needs new featured articles.
Hey there! I just wanted to thank you for finding the accident report; I had been searching all over the place for it. I think I have addressed all your comments at the FAC, and I would be grateful if you could review the changes I have made. Thanks, wackywace15:14, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
Just to let you know, I've addressed the additional comments you left at the FAC. BTW, this is looking really good; I hope we'll be seeing it at GAN or FAC in the future! wackywace19:28, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
Thanks. I've added a final comment to the FAC review. Personally I don't think the article has the sheer scope necessary for a Featured Article, but I do think it's a viable candidate for A-class as it is. Small steps, eh? --Mûĸĸâĸûĸâĸû (blah?) 22:13, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
Online Ambassadors
I saw the quality of your contributions at DYK and clicked on over to your user page and was pretty impressed. Would you be interested in helping with the WP:Online_Ambassadors program? It's really a great opportunity to help university students become Wikipedia contributers. I hope you apply to become an ambassador, Sadads (talk) 21:06, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
Talk:Death of Philip Gale/GA1
Thank you very much for your good faith review over at Talk:Death of Philip Gale/GA1. Unfortunately, I have decided to step back from contributing to this particular article. Others may wish to respond to your valid points at the GA Review, but I will be avoiding that particular page. Please feel free to do what you judge best, with the status of the article. Thanks very much for your time, -- Cirt (talk) 02:09, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
We are half way through round one of the WikiCup. Signups are now closed, and we have 129 listed competitors, 64 of whom will make it to round two. Congratulations to The Bushranger (submissions), who, at the time of writing, has a comfortable lead with 228 points, followed by Hurricanehink (submissions), with 144 points. Four others have over 100 points. Congratulations also go to Yellow Evan (submissions), who scored the first points in the competition, claiming for Talk:Hurricane King/GA1, Miyagawa (submissions), who scored the first non-review points in the competition, claiming for Dognapping, and Jarry1250 (submissions) who was the first in the competition to use our new "multiplier" mechanic (explanation), claiming for Grigory Potemkin, a subject covered on numerous Wikipedias. Thanks must also go to Jarry1250 for dealing with all bot work- without you, the competition wouldn't be happening!
A running total of claims can be seen here. However, numerous competitors are yet to score at all- please remember to submit content soon after it is promoted, so that the judges are able to review entries. The number of points that will be needed to reach round two is not clear- everyone needs to get their entries in now to guarantee their places! If you are concerned that your nomination will not receive the necessary reviews, and you hope to get it promoted before the end of the round, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews. However, please remember to continue to offer reviews at GAC, FAC and all the other pages that require them to prevent any backlogs which could otherwise be caused by the Cup. As ever, questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup and the judges are reachable on their talk pages, or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start receiving or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn and The ed1722:39, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
Hi
Hi, my name is DarkJak495. But you can just call me DJ. I was wondering if you would like to work with me on making the article: The Ruins of Gorlan a better article. My goal is to make it GA class. If you are intersted, then please respond on the Ruins of Gorlan talkpage. Your help and experiance would be gratefully appreciated. Thanks, and i am looking forward to hearing a response from you!UserDarkJak495talk orange 15:41, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
Hey DarkJak. Unfortunately I really don't work very much with novels or literature. You may have noticed that the majority of my good articles and big projects are either translations or about aviation. I'm an engineer; I haven't taken a literature class since high school. My ability to write about literature or novels is, well, pretty much nil.
Thanks for tweaking that. This is my first entry, and I make mistakes :-) I've also realised I spelled his name wrong in the header on the DYK page :-P Reynardo (talk) 11:08, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
Silas Blissett
Hey, I noticed you only put a "maybe" icon on the DYK nomination form for Silas. You stated this was because there is no sourced storyline. That's not needed as per :MOS:TV#Plot section it states: "Plot summaries do not normally require citations; the television show itself is the source, as the accuracy of the plot description can be verified by watching the episode in question. An exception to this rule may be shows containing plot details that are unclear or open to interpretation, in which case the different interpretations should be sourced to reliable sources." So isn't the article fin afterall?RAIN*the*ONEBAM20:49, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
Euclid Faktur is actually the name of the font in my signature, not my username. Just didn't want you to get confused (you mixed them up on an AFD we were both voting on). Regards, ⇒SWATJesterSon of the Defender22:46, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
Could you provide the article links for the new Polish club articles you were talking about at WT:FOOTY earlier this evening? If these clubs really do not have any articles at pl.wiki, they could probably be speedied as non-notable or even for being a hoax. Thanks, Soccer-holicI hear voices in my head...21:00, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
Haha sorry, left response on things related to book on talk page. Thought I would move here for the personal stuff. On the WP:Novels thing many of us aren't literature people by training, but we get a lot of Kruft and people who like to write long and complex plot summaries. I find myself writing articles on Novels I have no intention of ever reading, but they are really easy to research because you find a couple of reviews and pull out the different important aspects and you piece that together into common topic themes. You really don't actually have to understand the book to write the article, its great! I have written like 5 of the James Fenimore Cooper novel articles, like The Red Rover, without ever reading the books. Currently, we have a huge clean backlog that we are trying to work on, and plot summaries are our biggest. Check out WP:Novels/Collaboration and maybe kill some plot tags, there is a barnstar in it for you! Judging by the work you did on this article, I would think you would be really good at it! Sadads (talk) 22:18, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
I'll see what I can do. I'll probably go at anything tagged with {{plot}} or {{book-fiction}} during next month's Guild of Copy Editors clean-up drive.
My big problem with novels and articles about them isn't so much plot but the thematic elements. I went to a very liberal-arts-oriented high school so I can talk rather knowledgeably about these sorts of things, but how I avoid WP:OR is by researching the article from scratch -- which is hard to do when you don't even know where to start looking. Frankly, beyond SparkNotes and CliffNotes I have no clue where to look. And generally if the work is important enough to have (Spark/Cliff)Notes, it probably doesn't need expansion anyway.
Google news is a good place to start (make sure you check the archives option in the time period you search), also major newspapers for reviews, Publisher's Weekly, , if you check google scholar you can see if anyone has cited the article, and if you have EBSCOHost or some other scholarly databases, usually if you just search the title in quotes and then the author's last name, you can find a whole slew of sources, especially if the book is by a well known author, because they inevitably have newspaper reviews, sometimes from small newspapers. Also, online magazines you will find if you search author name, title and review on google, Sadads (talk) 22:45, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
I appreciate your eagerness to see Conservation of slow lorises reach good article status. However, as the author of the article, I would have preferred to have made the nomination. In fact, had I not come home from work this evening and fallen asleep, I was going to do a little bit more touch-up work and nominate the article myself. Please, before nominating articles at WP:GAN, first check with the authors and ensure they they do not have plans to nominate the article. Thanks, – VisionHolder « talk »09:29, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
... If I had nominated it for WP:DYK and not mentioned you as an author of the article, I'd understand. But GA? There's no attribution involved there, and no notice along the lines of "An article you significantly contributed to has made it to GA-class..." like there is with DYK. I noticed the article when I was on new page patrol and I was very impressed. I wandered off, came back, and was further impressed by the further progress you had made, so I nominated it for GA.
I do apologize, however, for not notifying you that I made the nomination. I was late to class and it totally slipped my mind. Best. --Mûĸĸâĸûĸâĸû(blah?)00:35, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
Not to come off as curt or flippant or anything like that; I seriously didn't think that anybody would be peeved over somebody nominating an article they'd worked on as a Good Article. Frankly the last time someone did that for an article that I had contributed significantly to, I was rather flattered (mostly because I'd not considered that article to be anything more than a B-class at most.) Best. --Mûĸĸâĸûĸâĸû(blah?)00:37, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
I'm sorry. I'm not trying to come across as a dick. Honestly, I am flattered that you think the article merits a nomination at GAN. However, different editors have their own plans for their articles. What if I had planned to take the article straight to FAC? (Answer: I would not be able to nominate the article until after the GAN finishes, which could take weeks.) Also, by losing the claim to the nomination, I could lose out on a chance to win a Four Award for the article. Additionally, I include my Wiki work on my CV. Most people who read my CV have no idea how to look at edit histories, so pointing them to a GA credit or Four Award is my best evidence.
The other issue I have with it is that some editors jump on newly re-written articles, nominate them before the authors do, and then claim the full GA credit. Here's an example where that happened to a friend of mine: Miniopterus mahafaliensis/GA1 Be sure to note the immediate GA pass (no changes necessary) and read the nominators comments at the very end... and then consider the edit history. Now let me be clear that I am not accusing you of this. I'm just saying that this is how it could be perceived. This is why I suggest dropping a note on the author's talk page first to make sure there are no plans for the article before nominating, particularly if the article was very recently (re)written. If there is no significant author (or team of authors), particularly if the article has been in excellent shape for a long time with no activity or has a primary editor who has since left Wiki, then go for it! The more articles we have run though a vetting process and get credit for it the better. Again, I'm sorry to sound possessive. Please understand that I put a lot of work into that article and would like to get the full credit for my work. – VisionHolder « talk »01:08, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
Hm. I never thought of it that way. I can see how having someone else take the credit can be seriously annoying (because I can't think of a more appropriate and stronger synonym), and I find the case you mentioned in your previous comment quite appalling. Please be assured that I am in no way looking to take credit for getting the article to where it is now. I am fully capable of writing a GA-class article myself, and have no need to go stealing other people's work and claiming it as my own. :)
I suppose, however, that the basis of this is a difference in points of view that has partially come about from the fact that I do not work in a field where including my Wikipedia work on my CV would do me any good. (And, in fact, would probably garner some strange looks and questions from potential employers or contractors.)
I have always considered the higher classes of article, GA and higher, to be a sort of status symbol -- not for the contributor(s) to the article but moreso for the article itself. These higher classes articles, in my opinion, are the reason why Wikipedia is not dismissed out of hand as an interesting internet phenomenon and social experiment but of little value as an encyclopedia. For that reason, when I stumble upon an article that I find particularly interesting, well-sourced, and well written, my immediate reaction is to nominate it for GA class so that it can get the recognition it deserves.
With regards to your mention of WP:FOUR, I had been under the impression that it was awarded on the basis of an editor creating an article, sending it through WP:DYK, and then contributing significantly to aforementioned article as it passed through GA to FA statuses. But on second glance, I am apparently in the wrong. I was not aware that there needed to be any sort of nomination credit, which I find kind of silly anyway. (Since that kind of makes the whole idea of collaboration a complete moot point anyway. Not that I want to claim collaboration credit or anything on the Conservation of slow lorises article; just in general I find it a kind of ridiculous double standard.)
Really. I don't want any credit for the article. I recognize just how much work you put into it, and the resulting article is fascinating and excellently done. I nominated it for GA so that it (and, I suppose, you) would get the recognition it (and you) deserve. Best. --Mûĸĸâĸûĸâĸû(blah?)04:28, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
And with regards to your point about going directly to FA and bypassing GA altogether, I have seen editors decline a GA nomination by deleting the nomination template off the talk page directly. I'm not sure if this is the proper procedure for that sort of thing; that's just what I've seen happen. I'm really quite sorry for stepping on your toes. Best. --Mûĸĸâĸûĸâĸû(blah?)04:32, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
Sorry for not replying earlier. I needed a break from Wiki tonight, and I just got back. I don't want you to feel bad about the nomination. I sincerely do appreciate your efforts, and I encourage you to keep looking for near-GA-quality articles. All I ask is that you do a quick check of the history, and if it looks like it's under construction, just drop a quick note on the talk page and ask what the plans are. If no replies after a week, by all means, please nominate and then take the feedback to finish polishing it up! Any frustration I have shown has been with the loopholes that allow abuse of this kind of thing. I was assuming good faith, and I hold no grudges. Being bold is important on Wiki, but I have also been bitten by it before. Trust me—there are plenty of bruised toes on Wiki with the imprint of my shoes. Like I said, keep up the good work. – VisionHolder « talk »06:05, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
So begins round two of the WikiCup! We now have eight pools, each with eight random contestants. This round will continue until the end of April, when the top two of each pool, as well as the next 16 highest scorers of those remaining, will make it to round three. Congratulations to The Bushranger (submissions) (first, with 487 points) and Hurricanehink (submissions) (second, with 459), who stormed the first round. Casliber (submissions) finished third with 223. Twelve others finished with over 100 points- well done to all of you! The final standings in round one can be seen here. A mere 8 points were required to reach round two; competition will no doubt be much more fierce this round, so be ready for a challenge! A special thanks goes, again, to Jarry1250 (submissions) for dealing with all bot work. This year's bot, as well as running smoothly, is doing some very helpful things that last year's did not. Also, thanks to Stone (submissions) for some helpful behind-the-scenes updating and number crunching.
Some news for those who are interested- March will see a GAN backlog elimination drive, which you are still free to join. Organised by WikiProject Good articles, the drive aims to minimise the GAN backlog and offers prizes to those who help out. Of course, you may well be able to claim WikiCup points for the articles you review as part of the drive. Also ongoing is the Great Backlog Drive, looking to work on clearing all of the backlogs on Wikipedia; again, incentives are offered, and the spirit of friendly competition is alive, while helping the encyclopedia is the ultimate aim. Though unrelated to the WikiCup, these may well be of interest to some of you.
Just a reminder of the rules; if you have done significant work on content this year and it is promoted in this round, you may claim for it. Also, anything that was promoted after the end of round one but before the beginning of round two may be claimed for in round two. Details of the rules can be found on this page. For those interested in statistics, a running total of claims can be seen here, and a very interesting table of that information (along with the highest scorers in each category) can be seen here. If you are concerned that your nomination will not receive the necessary reviews, and you hope to get it promoted before the end of the round, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews. However, please remember to continue to offer reviews at GAC, FAC and all the other pages that require them to prevent any backlogs which could otherwise be caused by the Cup. As ever, questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup and the judges are reachable on their talk pages, or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start receiving or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn and The ed1723:47, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
WikiCup 2011 March newsletter
We are half way through round two of the WikiCup, which will end on 28 April. Of the 64 current contestants, 32 will make it through to the next round; the two highest in each pool, and the 16 next highest scorers. At the time of writing, our current overall leader is Hurricanehink (submissions) with 231 points, who leads Pool H. Piotrus (submissions) (Pool G) also has over 200 points, while 9 others (three of whom are in Pool D) have over 100 points. Remember that certain content (specifically, articles/portals included in at least 20 Wikipedias as of 31 December 2010 or articles which are considered "vital") is worth double points if promoted to good or featured status, or if it appears on the main page in the Did You Know column. There were some articles last round which were eligible for double points, but which were not claimed for. For more details, see Wikipedia:WikiCup/Scoring.
A running total of claims can be seen here. However, numerous competitors are yet to score at all- please remember to submit content soon after it is promoted, so that the judges are able to review entries. The number of points that will be needed to reach round three is not clear- everyone needs to get their entries in now to guarantee their places! If you are concerned that your nomination will not receive the necessary reviews, and you hope to get it promoted before the end of the round, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews. However, please remember to continue to offer reviews at GAC, FAC and all the other pages that require them to prevent any backlogs which could otherwise be caused by the Cup. As ever, questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup and the judges are reachable on their talk pages, or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start receiving or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn and The ed1701:03, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
GOCE March 2011 backlog elimination drive progress graphs
There were 99 signups for the drive; of these, 70 participated. Interest was high mainly due to a link to our event from the Watchlist page. We had a record-breaking 84 articles listed on the Requests page in March; 11 of these have been promoted to Good article status so far. Several of our recent efforts have received Featured Article status as well, and the GOCE is becoming a solid resource for the Wikipedia community. Many thanks to editors who have been helping out at the Requests page and by copy editing articles from the backlog.
Progress report
Remarkable progress was made in reducing the backlog this month, as we now have fewer than 500 articles remaining from 2009. We are well under the 4,000-article mark for the total number remaining in the queue. Since our backlog drives began in May 2010 with 8,323 articles, we have cleared more than 53% of the backlog. A complete list of results and barnstars awarded can be found here. Barnstars will be distributed over the next week. If you enjoyed participating in our event, you may also like to join the Wikification drives, which are held on alternate months to our drives. Their April drive has started.
For Helping Wikipedia a lot. And for not committing WikiCrime (Wikipedia:WikiCrime) Jamison Lofthouse (talk) 22:30, 12 April 2011 (UTC) has given you a dove! Doves promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day happier. Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a dove, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past (this fits perfectly) or a good friend. Cheers!
Spread the peace of doves by adding {{subst:Peace dove}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message!
Lesser Poland
Hi there! Just want to thank you for your involvement in the Lesser Poland article. Your help is much appreciated by me, and I hope for more in the future, as there is much more to be written about Lesser Poland. Happy Easter. Tymek (talk) 21:34, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
Our Project has been operational since 1 June, 2005, and also serves as the Poland-related Wikipedia notice board. I highly recommend watchlisting the Wikipedia:WikiProject Poland page, so you can be aware of the ongoing discussions. We hope you will join us in them, if you haven't done so already! Unlike many other WikiProjects, we are quite active; in this year alone about 40 threads have been started on our discussion page, and we do a pretty good job at answering all issues raised.
In addition to a lively encyclopedic, Poland-related, English-language discussion forum, we have numerous useful tools that can be of use to you - and that you could help us maintain and develop:
once an article is assessed it will appear in our article alerts and news feed, which provides information on which Poland-related articles are considered for deletion, move, or are undergoing a Good or Featured review. Watchlisting that feed, in addition to watchlisting our project's main page, is a good way to make sure you stay up to date on most Poland-related discussions.
also, those articles will be included in our cleanup listing, which allows us to see which top-importance articles are in need for attention, and so on
newly created Poland-related articles are listed here. They need to be reviewed, often cleaned-up, and its creators may need to be welcomed and invited to our project
This is not all; on our page you can find a list of useful templates (including userboxes), awards and other tools!
With all that said, how about you join our discussions at WT:POLAND? Surely, there must be something you could help others with, or perhaps you are in need of assistance yourself?
Round 2 of the 2011 WikiCup is over, and the new round will begin on 1 May. Note that any points scored in the interim (that is, for content promoted or reviews completed on 29-30 April) can be claimed in the next round, but please do not start updating your submissions' pages until the next round has begun. Fewer than a quarter of our original contestants remain; 32 enter round 3, and, in two months' time, only 16 will progress to our penultimate round. Casliber (submissions), who led Pool F, was our round champion, with 411 points, while 7 contestants scored between 200 and 300 points. At the other end of the scale, a score of 41 was high enough to reach round 3; more than five times the score required to reach round 2, and competition will no doubt become tighter now we're approaching the later rounds. Those progressing to round 3 were spread fairly evenly across the pools; 4 progressed from each of pools A, B, E and H, while 3 progressed from both pools C and F. Pools D and G were the most successful; each had 5 contestants advancing.
This round saw our first good topic points this year; congratulations to Hurricanehink (submissions) and Nergaal (submissions) who also led pool H and pool B respectively. However, there remain content types for which no points have yet been scored; featured sounds, featured portals and featured topics. In addition to prizes for leaderboard positions, the WikiCup awards other prizes; for instance, last year, a prize was awarded to Candlewicke (submissions) (who has been eliminated) for his work on In The News. For this reason, working on more unusual content could be even more rewarding than usual!
Sorry this newsletter is going out a little earlier than expected- there is a busy weekend coming up! A running total of claims can be seen here. If you are concerned that your nomination will not receive the necessary reviews, and you hope to get it promoted before the end of the round, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews. However, please remember to continue to offer reviews at GAC, FAC and all the other pages that require them to prevent any backlogs which could otherwise be caused by the Cup. As ever, questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup and the judges are reachable on their talk pages, or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start receiving or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn and The ed1719:25, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
Yemenia Flight 448
Left this on the AFD but thought it would be useful to you, if you're interested in working on the article more. Found 29 news articles: [1], this one is particularly good for details: [2], additional 16 news articles here: [3]. Denaar (talk) 05:47, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
GOCE drive newsletter
The Guild of Copy Editors – May 2011 Backlog Elimination Drive
The Guild of Copy Editors invite you to participate in the May 2011 Backlog Elimination Drive, a month-long effort to reduce the backlog of articles that require copy-editing. The drive began on May 1 at 00:00 (UTC) and will end on May 31 at 23:59 (UTC). The goals of this backlog elimination drive are to eliminate as many articles as possible from the 2009 backlog and to reduce the overall backlog by 15%. ! NEW ! In an effort to encourage the final elimination of all 2009 articles, we will be tracking them on the leaderboard for this drive.
Awards and barnstars
A range of barnstars will be awarded to active participants. Some are exclusive to GOCE drives. More information on awards can be found on the main drive page.
You are receiving a copy of this newsletter as you are a member of the Guild of Copy Editors, or have participated in one of our drives. If you do not wish to receive future newsletters, please add you name here. Sent on behalf of the Guild of Copy Editors using AWB on 07:52, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
GOCE drive newsletter
The Guild of Copy Editors – May 2011 Backlog Elimination Drive
The Guild of Copy Editors invite you to participate in the May 2011 Backlog Elimination Drive, a month-long effort to reduce the backlog of articles that require copy-editing. The drive began on May 1 at 00:00 (UTC) and will end on May 31 at 23:59 (UTC). The goals of this backlog elimination drive are to eliminate as many articles as possible from the 2009 backlog and to reduce the overall backlog by 15%. ! NEW ! In an effort to encourage the final elimination of all 2009 articles, we will be tracking them on the leaderboard for this drive.
Awards and barnstars
A range of barnstars will be awarded to active participants. Some are exclusive to GOCE drives. More information on awards can be found on the main drive page.
You are receiving a copy of this newsletter as you are a member of the Guild of Copy Editors, or have participated in one of our drives. If you do not wish to receive future newsletters, please add you name here. Sent on behalf of the Guild of Copy Editors using AWB on 07:55, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
WikiCup 2011 May newsletter
We're half way through round 3 of the 2011 WikiCup. There are currently 32 remaining in the competition, but only 16 will progress to our penultimate round. Casliber (submissions), of pool D, is our overall leader with nearly 200 points, while pools A, B and C are led by Racepacket (submissions), Hurricanehink (submissions) and Canada Hky (submissions) respectively. The score required to reach the next round is 35, though this will no doubt go up significantly as the round progresses. We have a good number of high scorers, but also a considerable number who are yet to score. Please remember to submit content soon after it is promoted, so that the judges are able to review entries. Also, an important note concerning nominations at featured article candidates: if you are nominating content for which you intend to claim WikiCup points, please make this clear in the nomination statement so that the FAC director and his delegates are aware of the fact.
A running total of claims can be seen here. If you are concerned that your nomination will not receive the necessary reviews, and you hope to get it promoted before the end of the round, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews. However, please remember to continue to offer reviews at GAC, FAC and all the other pages that require them to prevent any backlogs which could otherwise be caused by the Cup. As ever, questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup and the judges are reachable on their talk pages, or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start receiving or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn and The ed1723:33, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
WikiCup 2011 June newsletter
We are half way through 2011, and entering the penultimate round of this year's WikiCup; the semi-finals are upon us! Points scored in the interim (29/30 June) may be counted towards next round, but please do not update your submissions' pages until the next round has begun. 16 contestants remain, and all have shown dedication to the project to reach this far. Our round leader was Casliber (submissions) who, among other things, successfully passed three articles through featured article candidates and claimed an impressive 29 articles at Did You Know, scoring 555 points. Casliber led pool D. Pool A was led by Wizardman (submissions), claiming points for a featured article, a featured list and seven good article reviews, while pool C was led by Eisfbnore (submissions), who claimed for two good articles, ten articles at Did You Know and four good article reviews. They scored 154 and 118 respectively. Pool B was by far our most competitive pool; six of the eight competitors made it through to round 4, with all of them scoring over 100 points. The pool was led by Hurricanehink (submissions), who claimed for, among other things, three featured articles and five good articles. In addition to the four pool leaders, 12 others (the four second places, and the 8 next highest overall) make up our final 16. The lowest scorer who reached round 4 scored 76 points; a significant increase on the 41 needed to reach round 3. Eight of our semi-finalists scored at least twice as much as this.
No points were awarded this round for featured pictures, good topics or In the News, and no points have been awarded in the whole competition for featured topics, featured portals or featured sounds. Instead, the highest percentage of points has come from good articles. Featured articles, despite their high point cost, are low in number, and so, overall, share a comparable number of points with Did You Know, which are high in number but low in cost. A comparatively small but still considerable number of points come from featured lists and good article reviews, rounding out this round's overall scores.
We would again like to thank Jarry1250 (submissions) and Stone (submissions) for invaluable background work, as well as all of those helping to provide reviews for the articles listed on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews. Please do keep using it, and please do help by providing reviews for the articles listed there. However, please remember to continue to offer reviews generally at GAC, FAC and all the other pages that require them to prevent any backlogs which could otherwise be caused by the Cup.
Two final notes: Firstly, please remember to state your participation in the WikiCup when nominating articles at FAC. Finally, some WikiCup-related statistics can be seen here and here, for those interested, though it appears that neither are completely accurate at this time. As ever, questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup and the judges are reachable on their talk pages, or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start receiving or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn and The ed1723:37, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
This is an archive of past discussions with User:Mukkakukaku. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
