Nice to see you back! Any summer projects for WP? Aza24 (talk) 05:32, 8 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Aside from the FAC, I'm looking back over a couple of my userspace drafts (User:Vaticidalprophet/Dark Archives, User:Vaticidalprophet/Marie Sophie Hingst, User:Vaticidalprophet/List of New Hollywood films). I don't assume presence in either direction too strongly, aside from seeing through the FAC and my current GA reviews. I'm happy to be here, though, and I'd like to be here more often. It's great to see you too, I hope you're doing well. Vaticidalprophet 05:47, 8 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Welcome back. I missed your work and your thoughtful perspective. Urve (talk) 19:25, 8 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Marie Sophie Hingst you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. 
This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Kusma -- Kusma (talk) 22:04, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- I just passed it, but please go and check the subtopic I sorted this as. I found it seriously difficult to place her. —Kusma (talk) 17:09, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks, Kusma! I checked and I think the placing is defensible -- it's a tricky article to categorize, but someone whose notability ultimately grew out of a blog does slot most naturally there. The only real alternative would be the huge nonspecific 'cultural studies' block, and I prefer having it in the more specific one of the two. I note Kaycee Nicole is also in that section and similarly deals with a blog-based identity fraud. Vaticidalprophet 11:19, 24 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Check out Waste container, lol. Maybe they did the same thing as that bit they had a while ago on the book that was a lipogram, where the article didn't say "e" -- this article is about trash cans, so... jp×g 05:09, 14 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Great find. I like how the talk page opens with a merge discussion for Wheelie bin, then you scroll down a few more sections and some guy is confused because he got redirected there but it has no info on wheelie bins. WP:PRESERVE moment! Vaticidalprophet 05:14, 14 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Vaticidalprophet, hope your situation will improve. I am curious about the project you mentioned on WT:GA, would be interesting to hear what readers think, and I'm particularly interested on whether readers value the presence of citations, even if they don't usually follow them. I've always wondered if citations are something we imported from academia that don't have similar impact in general life. I'm not sure what I could do but if there's some help I might be able to offer during what is presumably a quite busy time for you, please let me know. Best, CMD (talk) 02:00, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you so much, Chipmunkdavis. Wikipedia is useful for me to be around right now even though I can't be too productive; I can absolutely use the distraction.
- Regarding readers and citations, I was just musing on this earlier -- I think younger (preteens to some point in 30s, as extremely rough upper and lower bounds) readers have some idea of citations. "Do not cite Wikipedia for school assignments" is frequently sufficed with "...cite what Wikipedia cites", which raises awareness that there is, in fact, a list of citations at the end of the article; readers of an age to have heard this, which is roughly that bound (I'm assuming younger haven't gotten to that point at school yet), will generally have this. This is quite different to 'they have any real idea how the citations work', though. When I was at that stage of school, both my practice and my observation was that this led to very blunt-force "literally go to #References and pick something that looks respectable enough, then claim this is what you read instead of the Wikipedia article". I'm not sure how many of these readers will draw the connection between 'the superscript numbers in the article' and 'the list'.
- I also think, inasmuch as readers understand citations, they absolutely don't understand {{sfn}} and similar methods that detach the superscript numbers from the bibliography. These methods are popular because they're closer to academic referencing and they 'look nice', but they provide yet another mental jump between 'seeing the cite when you hover over or click the number'. I've seen editors fail to understand that sfn cites are cites, and edit-war over moving books cited such to "Further reading" because they "aren't references". (You can probably guess how much content these editors write.) I definitely think the whole thing is lost on readers who aren't themselves from an academic context. Vaticidalprophet 03:16, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- I understand the usefulness during difficult periods you mention very well; I developed Elections in Jordan and 2016 Jordanian general election during time spent in a public library. As for students, a perhaps unusual anecdote but when I was in school my citations (in social sciences) were specifically checked, and I got told off for using what here on en.wiki we would call unreliable sources. I have similar thoughts about sfn, but, speaking of school, being now free of MLA citation format I fully understand those who don't want a citation method forced upon them. CMD (talk) 05:27, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The winners of the 2023 The Core Contest are announced 🎉. We had an amazing set of improvements this year, and the judges (Femke, Aza24 and Casliber) would like to thank everybody who joined and congratulate the winners.
- First place goes to Buidhe for improving The Holocaust; very core, highly relevant; their work on bringing geographical balance to the article puts the topic in a whole different light. We also commend improvements to sourcing and prose
- A close second place goes to Phlsph7 for improving Education from an unstructured jumble into a well-sourced piece of instruction
- Third prize goes to Johnbod for improving Donatello, a near five-fold expansion with great sourcing and fantastic imagery
- A tie for fourth place goes to Thebiguglyalien for improving Crime, for a strong improvement in sourcing
- A tie for fifth place goes to Sammielh for International law, improved by converting contextless listicles into a proper sourced prose
If you wish to start or stop receiving news about The Core Contest, please add or remove yourself from the delivery list. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 20:07, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The article Marie Sophie Hingst you nominated as a good article has passed 
; see Talk:Marie Sophie Hingst for comments about the article, and Talk:Marie Sophie Hingst/GA1 for the nomination. Well done! If the article has not already appeared on the main page as a "Did you know" item, or as a bold link under "In the News" or in the "On This Day" prose section, you can nominate it within the next seven days to appear in DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On This Day" column do not affect DYK eligibility. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Kusma -- Kusma (talk) 17:22, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
For any interested parties: I've just opened a 'curiosity PR' (in the same sense, one supposes, as the curiosity FAC) at Wikipedia:Peer review/Elisabeth Geleerd/archive1 and would appreciate any suggestions on potentially seeing the article to a FAC nomination. I'm aware PR is a little moribund these days, so I'm placing a note here just in case. (I also suspect Marie Sophie Hingst will be my next nomination at FAC itself, and am happy to field comments about it as well.) Vaticidalprophet 13:01, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, Vaticidalprophet,
Thanks for your comment at Wikipedia talk:Welcoming committee/Welcome templates#Proposal: drop 'first article' link from all templates. As this is now an Rfc, and is only one day old and so I guess has 30 more days to go, it may get quite long. Is there any chance I could get you to WP:REFACTOR your long comment into two parts, a !vote part, and a discussion part? I've added section headers "Survey" and "Discussion" to the Rfc to facilitate this. I just think that your comment may elicit feedback, and it might get long, and it would be nice to have the threaded discussions in a separate section, and the !votes more of a mostly-flat list of briefer responses. Your call, but I think it would help everyone, no matter which result they favor, navigate the Rfc. Either way, thanks for participating! Mathglot (talk) 08:11, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- I'll consider it, depending how the discussion goes. I think the length of my !vote as a !vote is within reasonable grounds -- it's an extremely complex subject that deserves extremely complex treatment -- but I'll refactor if the conversation gets unwieldy, and I'll direct threaded responses to the relevant section. Right now I'm inclined to leave it, but I do see and respect the argument, and think it's applicable for a longer discussion. Vaticidalprophet 08:15, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Paul Needham (librarian) you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Premeditated Chaos -- Premeditated Chaos (talk) 20:21, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The third round of the 2023 WikiCup has come to an end. The 16 users who made it to the fourth round had at least 175 points. Our top scorers in round 3 were:
Contestants achieved 11 featured articles, 2 featured lists, 47 good articles, 72 featured or good article reviews, over 100 DYKs and 40 ITN appearances. As always, any content promoted after the end of round 3 but before the start of round 4 can be claimed in round 4. Please also remember that you must claim your points within 14 days of "earning" them. When doing GARs, please make sure that you check that all the GA criteria are fully met. Please also remember that all submissions must meet core Wikipedia policies, regardless of the review process.
If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article nominations, a featured process, or anywhere else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews Needed (remember to remove your listing when no longer required). 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 or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove your name from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. Sturmvogel 66 (talk) and Cwmhiraeth (talk). MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:18, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
