User talk:Bobnorwal/Archive 4

John Lewis / Graphic novel
Hi - I noticed that you commented a while ago at Talk:John Lewis (U.S. politician) about Lewis writing a graphic novel - I just created the stub article The March trilogy, if you are interested. KConWiki (talk) 17:00, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!
Y'know, if you ever were to get the main Dr. Seuss article to GA, you'd be a shoo-in for the Million Award Hall of Fame... -- Khazar2 (talk) 17:59, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Wow, even the Horton article gets 40,000 readers a year... nice. -- Khazar2 (talk) 18:01, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Hey, Khazar2. I don't mean to gush, but I just need to say that you really are an inspiration. You're friendly and professional. You give long (by Internet standards!) responses in discussions. I don't know... You may have an addiction to clown porn, for all I know, but from where I'm standing you're great!


 * PS I learned about the Million Award some time ago, and I immediately set my eyes on the Dr. Seuss article. The award is a great idea. For me, editing heavily viewed articles is very intimidating -- all those invisible eyes watching over your work, judging you. Plus the scope of the article is much wider than I'm used to. Seems like it'll be an adventure -- or an uphill slog -- but I definitely want to get that article to GA, and the award provides a nice added incentive.


 * In the mean time, I'm working on getting some other Dr. Seuss-related articles to GA, so we'll probably bump into each other again. Take care and good luck! Bobnorwal (talk) 20:15, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks so much, that's really kind! And I'm glad you're thinking about going after the Dr. Seuss article. I know what you mean about the sense of pressure. My impression from your work on the Horton article, though, is that you've got both the research and writing chops to pull it off in style. If there's ever a way I can lend a hand, just let me know. In the meantime I'll look forward to seeing what other Seussian articles you send up to GA... cheers, Khazar2 (talk) 22:51, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Horton Hatches the Egg
The article Horton Hatches the Egg you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Horton Hatches the Egg for comments about the article. Well done! Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Khazar2 -- 18:02, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

WikiCup 2013 October newsletter
The WikiCup is over for another year! Our champion, for the second year running, is. Our final nine were as follows:

All those who reached the final win prizes, and prizes will also be going to the following participants:


 * wins the FA prize, for four featured articles in round 4, worth 400 points.
 * wins the GA prize, for 20 good articles in round 3, worth 600 points.
 * wins the FL prize, for four featured lists in round 2, worth 180 points.
 * wins the FP prize, for 23 featured pictures in round 5, worth 805 point.
 * wins the FPo prize, for 2 featured portals in round 3, worth 70 points.
 * wins the topic prize, for a 23-article featured topic in round 5, worth 230 points.
 * wins the DYK prize, for 79 did you know articles in round 5, worth 570 points.
 * wins the ITN prize, for 23 in the news articles in round 4, worth 270 points.
 * wins the GAR prize, for 24 good article reviews in round 1, worth 96 points.
 * The judges are awarding the Oddball Barnstar to, for some curious contributions in earlier rounds.
 * Finally, the judges are awarding the Geography Barnstar for her work on sea, now a featured article. This top-importance article was the highest-scoring this year; when it was promoted to FA status, Cwmhiraeth could claim 720 points.

Prizes will be handed out in the coming weeks. Please be patient!

Congratulations to everyone who has been successful in this year's WikiCup, whether you made it to the final rounds or not, and a particular congratulations to the newcomers to the WikiCup who have achieved this year. Thanks to all who have taken part and helped out with the competition. While it has been an excellent year, errors have opened up the judges' eyes to the need for a third judge, and it is with pleasure that we announce that experienced WikiCup participant Miyagawa will be acting as a judge from now on. We hope you will all join us in welcoming him to the team.

Next year's competition begins on 1 January. You are invited to sign up to participate; it is open to all Wikipedians, new and old. Brainstorming and discussion remains open for how next year's competition will work, and straw polls will be opened by the judges soon. Those interested in friendly competition may also like to keep an eye on the stub contest, being organised by Casliber. The WikiCup judges will be back in touch over the coming months, and we hope to see you all in the 2014 competition. Until then, it only remains to once again congratulate our worthy winners, and thank all participants for their involvement! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn (talk • email) and The ed17 (talk • email) 01:12, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of And to Think That I Saw It on Mulberry Street
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article And to Think That I Saw It on Mulberry Street 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 Legobot, on behalf of Curly Turkey -- 11:10, 3 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Eurgh ... here I came to inform you of the review, and I find a bot talking in the first person on my behalf ... anyways, looking forward to seeing this article pass GA. It's almost there. Curly Turkey (gobble) 12:36, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

WikiCup 2014
Hi, if you haven't already, you should consider signing up for WikiCup 2014. Cheers, --Sp33dyphil ©hatontributions 01:33, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

Mulberry Street stuff
I'm really sorry. I haven't done GA reviews for some time because I've been shit upon for supposedly not doing a thorough enough job. I thought I'd make sure that didn't happen this time. I guess I'm having trouble finding that sweet spot of being strict enough but not overly so.
 * You know, I understand. I don't know if you noticed, but there was some definite tension from me as I worked my way through your list of changes. They just about all make the article better (and I've already said my fill on the few I disagreed with), but I bristled at such a big load of new work when I thought I was already in the clear. When I read this post, though, all the hot gas left me. And now I see we're on the same side. I'm sorry about my gasiness, whether you noticed or not. Bobnorwal (talk) 21:39, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

I've moved the extra sources stuff to the article's talk page. I'm going to see if I can track down some of your sources to do a source check, and that's all I see left before promoting the article.

If you're inviting me to help you bring the article to FA standard, I'm more that happy to. Little makes me more unreasonably happy than search & replacing dashes and otherwise splitting hairs. I'd also be happy to hunt down some images—Anderson's got a photo of Mulberry Street in Springfield from 1903 that would be in the Public Domain. Curly Turkey (gobble) 01:43, 5 November 2013 (UTC)
 * "Little makes me more unreasonably happy than search & replacing dashes and otherwise splitting hairs." Yes, I noticed that about you. That sentence made me laugh out loud when I read it, because it's so true. Of course I don't know you, but that much I can tell. It's one of the reasons I asked for your help. I've noticed that FARs tend to be full of the biggest debates over the smallest things (Is it really true that FAC's have been failed simply over the placement of a comma?), so it'll be nice to have someone along who knows what they're talking about and can argue with them on even ground. You know what you're doing. I don't.Bobnorwal (talk) 21:39, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

I've done what source check I could. One of the cites is to the wrong page, but other than that it checks out. It would be nice if the cites to Morgan (1995) were to the actual pages being cited, rather than the chapter as a whole. Curly Turkey (gobble) 02:23, 5 November 2013 (UTC)
 * The next thing I'll do is sort out those page numbers. I decided that it was a silly way to do things about halfway into doing it. And of course I was too lazy to go back and change it. But now that ... (angelic trumpets) an FA review is in our future, I better get to it. After that, I'll start adding those sources. Bobnorwal (talk) 21:39, 5 November 2013 (UTC)


 * PS Thanks for adding those pictures. It's really starting to look like a proper article now.Bobnorwal (talk) 21:39, 5 November 2013 (UTC)
 * It looks like some rotten do-gooder is swiping my fun. Curly Turkey (gobble) 23:16, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

Hey, there, I just wanted to let you know that I do intend to get to work at Mulberry Street, but my WikiADHD has got me bouncing around at different articles at the moment. Don't be afraid to get impatient at me and leave the odd message to remind me. Curly Turkey (gobble) 06:24, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
 * You know, I think I have the same problem! Really, I wasn't too worried about you running out on this. I mean, I realize no one's getting paid here. Plus it's only been a few days, and I figure getting an article to FA status takes time. For the moment, I was just basking in the warm glow of GA (and dealing with real-life b.s.) I'll probably get back to work on it to tomorrow. It's almost 2 AM... So please do fix any typos you find in this message. :D Bobnorwal (talk) 06:55, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Zoltán of Hungary
Dear Bobnorwal, thank you for copyediting the article about the forefather of almost all Hungarian monarchs. I inserted some words in the sentence you mentioned and now I am making a GAN. Have a nice day! Borsoka (talk) 01:54, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

Stub Contest Comment
Has been greenlit, so sign up here and read about it here. Cheers, Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:03, 15 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the head's up! Bobnorwal (talk) 20:53, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

From Here to Eternity the Musical
Ive replied re needs clarification tag. Thanks for doing a copy edit. Blethering  Scot  14:26, 17 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Im just wondering, i have a few things still to add to the article would you be willing for me to ping you once if done that so you can take another look. Blethering  Scot  20:48, 17 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Sure. Just let me know when you're done. :) Bobnorwal (talk) 23:58, 17 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Ive still do to the critical reception section, but I've expanded the background section if you could take a look. Specifically the second paragraph is new as is a couple of sentences in the third paragraph. Blethering  Scot  16:22, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Fucking Machines thanks
Thank you for your helpful copy edits to Fucking Machines.

Just curious if you were completed yet?

I'm going to wait til you're all done before adding any new material.

Thanks again,

&mdash; Cirt (talk) 16:27, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
 * No, I'm not done yet. I don't want to hold you up, so I'll try to finish with it today. I'm probably going to leave a few comments on the article's talk page, so look forward to that... Essentially, I think the lead is a bit too long and detailed. I also think the whole article could flow better. I don't know. I'll keep chipping away at it. Bobnorwal (talk) 16:43, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Okay, sounds good, I agree with you about those things. If there's some way you could help improve flow, that'd be most appreciated! &mdash; Cirt (talk) 16:45, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
 * , I've gone ahead and greatly reduced the size of the lede, I think it looks much better in this more succinct format. What do you think? &mdash; Cirt (talk) 01:15, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I think it looks a lot better. It summarizes nicely without going into too much detail. You want to take this article through GA, right? Let me know how it goes! Bobnorwal (talk) 02:57, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, it's currently awaiting a GA Reviewer. I'll try to remember to update you after that process is over. Thanks again, &mdash; Cirt (talk) 03:40, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

Herb Mitchell (actor)
Have you finished copyediting already? --George Ho (talk) 06:27, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, I am done with it. It's a short article, and I looked it over again, and to my tastes it looks fine. That doesn't mean you can't resubmit to GOCE, of course. Bobnorwal (talk) 17:57, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of The Cat in the Hat
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article The Cat in the Hat 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 Legobot, on behalf of Zanimum -- 22:30, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

Mulberry Street copyedits
Hey, I've made some additions and copyedits to Mulberry Street. If there's anything you disagree with, just go ahead and revert it—we'll call that your "rebuttal".

There are some other things I'd like to do, but they go a bit beyond just copyediting, so I wanted to run it by you first. I'm not a big fan of using lots of quotes—in the "Artwork" section in particular, I'd like to rewrite it, paraphrasing and summing up what the various commenters have said. I think it'd make the section not only shorter but a lot more enjoyable to read.

Another thing: I'd like to take "He claimed, in varying accounts, that the manuscript was rejected by 20, 26, 27, 28, and 29 publishers." and "Alison Lurie later reported that 43 publishers had rejected the book." and combine them into a single footnote—it's the kind of detail that drags down the prose, but you'd still want to have it in the article. You're citation style is different from mine, though, so I'm not sure how you'd want to handle it (assuming you agree): a separate "Notes" section, or stuff it in with the other citations. Curly Turkey (gobble) 04:26, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Hi, Curly Turkey. You know, I think everything you suggest is pretty damn solid. I completely agree with the footnote suggestion. I say we create a separate Notes section, like you suggest. I also see what you mean about the Artwork section. It's choppy and removing most of the quotations in favor of paraphrasing would probably help. Honestly, that section was rough for me. I've never been any good at writing about visual art (like writing an auto manual in verse, to me) so I let the quotations do the talking.
 * Oh, I also looked over all your changes. Very nice! Question: Do you think we should blockquote "Say—anyone could think of that,/ Jack or Fred or Joe or Nat—/ Say, even Jane could think of that." the same way you did to the two lines in the lead? We definitely need all three lines. Having just the last one would, to me, be taking it out of context.
 * Thank you, by the way. Not only for doing such a nice job but also for being so nice about it, asking for my opinion and all that. It really motivates me to get back to work on this article! Bobnorwal (talk) 05:27, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I think the "even Jane" bit is fine as it is—it's important to quote the whole thing to get the point across, but it's not nearly prominent enough a point to draw so much attention to it. Curly Turkey (gobble) 06:58, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I knew you wouldn't be able to resist fixing that broken emdash. I just knew it! Now let's see if he fixes the broken italics in this reply... (I'm evil, I know :D) Bobnorwal (talk) 07:13, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Well, if I didn't fix the broken emdash, I would've shocked the world with my pottymouth (scroll down). Curly Turkey (gobble) 08:09, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping.

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from, SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot (talk) 18:09, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of The Cat in the Hat
The article The Cat in the Hat you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:The Cat in the Hat for comments about the article. Well done! Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Zanimum -- 22:12, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Stub Contest
You need to remove the stub tags from the pages that you re-rate or expand.  Schwede 66  05:27, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm afraid I don't know what you mean. I thought I was removing the stub tags from the articles' talk pages. I wish you would be a little more clear. Bobnorwal (talk) 18:24, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Mulberry "Artwork" section
I've taken a stab at the "Artwork" section. I'm sure the prose could be a little more exciting than what I've written. I'll probably come back to it after a couple of days, but I think you should take a look at it and make sure I haven't fucked anything up—I don't have access to all the sources, so I don't know if my changes have distorted what was actually written. I dropped a bunch of the "according to"-type stuff where I didn't think the interpretations were particularly controversial—if a FAC reviewer disagrees, we can always throw them back in then. Curly Turkey (gobble) 01:14, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Well, I just had my way with it. Probably the biggest changes: I cut it down to two paragraphs and rearranged things a bit. To me, it cried out to be in two paragraphs, one about the linking of text and pictures and the other about line and color. It still has some issues, though. The Morgans don't say anything equivalent to "the much-denigrated comics medium". They only imply that comparisons to comic books was not something a children's author sought after in those days. I left the phrase in there, though, since we all know it's true. The next sentence, "The artwork in children's literature before Geisel's appearance was much more restrained than Geisel's, and relegated to a lower status than the text it illustrated." is also not on Morgan, p. 84. I wonder how it slipped in. I guess there's some truth to it, but I seem to remember that, even by the 1930s, there were already some acknowledged masters of children's illustrations. Bobnorwal (talk) 03:56, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
 * "The artwork in children's literature before Geisel's appearance was much more restrained than Geisel's, and relegated to a lower status than the text it illustrated." was my attempt at a paraphrase of "at the time of Mulberry Street's publication, "in the constrained circle of children's literature [Geisel] was a rowdy and, at first glance, an undisciplined revolutionary.", while trying to mix in something about the equality of text and image that allegedly wasn't there before. Not as exciting as the original, and maybe not quite saying the same thing, but I guess that's what that "Edit" button is there for.  I think what you did looks better now.  I'll probably tweak the article here and there over the next couple days, but to be honest I think it's already ready for an FAC—it's all down to hairsplitting and style tightening, I think, which can all be sorted out durning the FAC (they tend to take a month or two these days). Curly Turkey (gobble) 04:42, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I'd be willing to submit it to FAC in a couple of days. I just want to go over it a bit more... I feel that there's more that I can add. MacDonald goes on about the book for at least five pages, and the article mentions it. Trouble is, I've had trouble condensing it, pulling out the important bits so that I can add them to the Analysis section. At the moment, I think I might add that "revolutionary" quote back in. It might even be the first sentence of the section. I always like to start with a sizzler. I might just be really sleepy... Bobnorwal (talk) 06:59, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Talk:Riichiro Inagaki
Hello, Bobnorwal. I've replied your commentaries there. Can you check it? Cheers, Gabriel Yuji (talk) 03:12, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Re Rainbow Trout GAN and 1/4 Mil Award
Bobnorwal, thanks - my goal is to get the big four--rainbow, cutthroat, brown and brook trout articles up to GA status then start pushing for FAC. --Mike Cline (talk) 11:15, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

Welcome to The Wikipedia Adventure!

 * Hi !  We're so happy you wanted to play to learn, as a friendly and fun way to get into our community and mission.  I think these links might be helpful to you as you get started.
 * The Wikipedia Adventure Start Page
 * The Wikipedia Adventure Lounge
 * The Teahouse new editor help space
 * Wikipedia Help pages

--

ping!
Pong!--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 01:48, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

A Holiday Turkey!


What's a holiday without a funny-tasting chicken? Most flavourful they are soonest after glaring directly into the twinkle of your eye.

Gobble gobble! Curly Turkey (gobble) 02:37, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

Re: Half Million Award for Dota 2
I am humbled by your award to me- while I look only to help improve the quality of Wikipedia, recognition in the lieu of what you've conveyed to me gives me all the more encouragement in the world. Thank you so much! D ARTH B OTTO talk•cont 20:15, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
 * De nada. The smiles of happy users are all the thanks I need. :) Bobnorwal (talk) 00:30, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Mulberry Street FA
Happy Holidays again! Honestly, I don't see any issues with the article at all—I'm sure some reviewer will point out some nitpicky details, but I can't see any issue larger than fixing little grammatical ambiguities or whatnot that would hold up the article. Any time you're ready just go throw it up on FAC. I don't know what exeriences you've had with FAC before that has put you off, so I can't promise you won't have a similar experience, but I honestly think this one will be smooth sailing. These days the process typically takes a month or more—my Goodman Beaver article has been up since 24 November, and the odd article goes as long as two months—there's a dearth of reviewers these days, so the reviews go a long time without comment.

I don't have any concrete plans for 2014—I tend to flit around, and have recently been doing a bunch of ukiyo-e articles. I often abandon an article midway when I come across a bunch of good sources for something else. Hey, here's something—if you're able to get access to any of Sunday Press Books' Winsor McCay books (two Little Nemos and one Little Sammy Sneeze ), say at the library or something, I'd love to add the essays from those books as sources to the Little Nemo, Sammy Sneeze, and maybe Winsor McCay articles. Actually, I'd love to simply buy the books, but they're expensive—the Nemo books are over $100, and measure 22"x16". As I'm in Japan, an interlibrary loan is out of the question. I have no idea how common these books are in libraries, though—likely not very, but I figure it couldn't hurt to ask, since you offered.

Have you got any particular dozen articles you plan on bringing up to GA, or just aiming for that number? Curly Turkey (gobble) 02:48, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Alright, I just nominated Mulberry Street... I hope I did it right. I've never had any real experience with the FAC process. I'm just generally a nervous person.


 * As for the books you wanted... luckily, I happen to live among one of the best public library systems in the world (or so they tell me). A search for "Little Nemo in Slumberland sunday press" on my library's website brought up this:
 * Author 	McCay, Winsor
 * Title 	Little Nemo in Slumberland / Winsor McCay ; [edited by Peter Maresca]
 * Publish Info 	Palo Alto, CA : Sunday Press Books, c2005
 * Edition 	1st ed
 * The search also brought up two Little Nemo calendars that Sunday Press apparently published. Do you know anything about those? Are they just regular old calendars that you hang on the wall? If so, it's odd that you can check that sort of thing out of the library.
 * A search for "little sammy sneeze sunday press" brought up this book:
 * Author 	McCay, Winsor
 * Title 	Little Sammy Sneeze / by Winsor Mccay ; edited by Peter Maresca ; introduction by John Canemaker
 * Publish Info 	[Palo Alto] : Sunday Press, 2007
 * Let me know if you can use either of these, and I'll order them right away. Keep in mind that they're from the library, on interlibrary loan too, so I don't really know how long I'll be able to keep them. Sometimes I can just keep renewing them. Sometimes someone else puts a hold on 'em, so you have to take 'em back. It's always fun when you check your textbooks for school out of the library, and somebody else orders them in the middle of the semester, and you have to take them back. I guess that's what I get for being a cheapskate.


 * About the 12 GA's... I don't know. Definitely there will be some more Dr. Seuss related stuff. I want to get all the major articles about him and his work to at least GA. But I'm sure a whole year of nothing but Dr. Seuss would probably drive me crazy. (Not to mention the books I checked out about him months ago will probably have to go back sooner or later :D) So I'm open to other topics. Maybe I'll wade through the tons of critical analysis to make "Secret Life of Walter Mitty" a GA. Maybe I'll work on an important comics article? We'll see. Anyhoo, hope I helped, even a little bit! Bobnorwal (talk) 18:37, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Awesome news! I don't know what level of interest you have in Winsor McCay, but the Sammy Sneeze book is the only significant source I'm aware of that isn't already used for the Little Sammy Sneeze article.  If you wanted to grab that and add anything interesting you see to the article, I think that'd be a quick GA at least.  The book itself is only about half the size of the Nemo ones—the Sammy Sneeze strips were not given a full page in papers the way Nemo was.
 * The calendars, I had thought, were mainly to give folks a lower-cost taste of the full-size Nemo Sundays—if there's any "source"-y information in there, it's likely lifted straight from the Nemo book. As far as I know, they are just wall calendars, though.  It does seem like an unusual thing for a library to stock.
 * FAC: You'll have to paste to the top of the list on the WP:FAC page, or nobody will see it.  If it's your first FAC, they may call for a closer source check than normal, which could take more time (meaning, it'll take time until some kind soul volunteers to do it).  Since it's Dr. Seuss, it might draw attention, but don't be surprised if the nom goes as long as weeks at a time with no activity—it's not a snub, there just aren't a lot of active reviewers these days.  The rule of thumb is if you get three supports with no outstanding issues, a clear source check, and a clear image check, you'll get promoted—that's not in writing anywhere, it's just how it tends to go.  I'm confident it's ready—the worst thing I can see happening is it gets archived due to a lack of willing reviewers—if that happens, don't take it personally, just renominate two weeks later with an explanation that there were no outstanding issues. Curly Turkey (gobble) 22:55, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Bad news... I just went to order the Sammy Sneeze book, and it tells me that the only copy in the system is non-circulating – that is, it's a reference book and can't be ordered. The library it's in is across the state, so there's no way I can get there. I'm sorry to get your hopes up and then smash them all to pieces. :(
 * I do appreciate your advice about FAC, though. I copy-pasted that text, like you said. And with you behind me, I don't feel so lost. We'll just see how FAC goes... I still feel bad about the book, though, so let me know if there's anything else I can help with. Bobnorwal (talk) 00:36, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
 * No problem, a WorldCat search shows only 13 copies in libraries on the entire continent, so it's not surprising. I don't know what else I might ask you for, since I don't know what kinds of stuff you're into.  Are you into old comic strips?  Or Harvey Kurtzman?
 * Oh, I'm watchlisting the FAC so I can help with any issues. Curly Turkey (gobble) 03:08, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Right after asking if you were into Kurtzman I ran across this and nearly wet myself. Of course, I could never afford it, and even if I could, I don't have a shelf big enough to hold it. Curly Turkey (gobble) 05:31, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

You wouldn't happen to have Project Muse access, would you? JMilburn tracked down a bunch of potential sources, but a lot of them are on Project Muse, so I can't access them. Curly Turkey (gobble) 21:47, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I might. That is, my university is on [this list http://muse.jhu.edu/about/order/subscriber_list_alpha.html], but I'm not sure how to log-in or access the articles, or whatever. When I click on one of the links JMilburn collected and I scrolled to the bottom to log in, my school isn't on the drop-down list. Most of them aren't. What am I missing? Hmmm.... Bobnorwal (talk) 00:49, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
 * It might be that you have to log in at the school library or something. Curly Turkey (gobble) 00:55, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
 * That might be, which would really suck, considering school's out and won't start up again for about, oh, a week. Bobnorwal (talk) 00:58, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I think it's unlikely you'll find anything truly substantial in those sources, anyways, so there's no rush. Still, you might want to keep an eye peeled for a fellow editor with access.  Even if the sources don't end up being used, it's a matter of demonstrating good faith to acknowledge that they've at least been looked at. Curly Turkey (gobble) 02:26, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

A Perfect Day for Bananafish
Dear Bob - I see you've completed a rewrite of Horton Hears a Who. Bravo.

Curiously, you recently made, for reasons that remain unclear, a visit to the talk page at A Perfect Day for Bananafish to set the article importance rating at "low".

You've rated "A Perfect Day for Bananafish" as a subject "not particularly notable or significant even within [its] field of literature", i.e. within the literature pertaining to short stories written by 20th Century American authors.WikiProject Novels/Assessment

Biographer Kenneth Slawenski reports that, "[Bananafish] is easily the most famous of Salinger's short stories." (see external link at Nine Stories (Salinger))

Does your rating have something to do with the status of Salinger, or the short story itself, or both? What is the basis for your evaluation? In other words, from what sources do you derive your conclusion? 36hourblock (talk) 21:11, 31 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Alright, alright. I almost definitely screwed up there. That rating was part of about, oh, 20 others I did all in a row, so you might want to check my contribs. My rating criteria were fairly vague and flexible, things like, "Did the book win any awards?" or "Did it have any notable influence on other writers?" Of course, I didn't do any thorough research to answer those questions thoroughly. So "Bananafish", an maybe others, slipped through. I apologize. I was only trying to help – I'd noticed that about 20-30 articles weren't rated on the WP:Novels importance scale, so I set out to rectify that – but I can now see that "drive-by editing" is not the best tactic for this task. Thanks, and you should probably rerate that article. To, what, Mid importance? Or High? I don't know... Have a good day! Bobnorwal (talk) 17:56, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

Project MUSE
Hey, have you found out if you've access to Project MUSE or not? Should I throw up a request at WikiProject Resource Exchange/Resource Request as Crisco pointed out? Curly Turkey (gobble) 01:49, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
 * No... I haven't checked. Truth is I forgot. But I'll check tomorrow. I'll ask someone at my school's library. Bobnorwal (talk) 23:50, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Great news! It looks like I have access. Bad news! It looks like there might still be plenty to add, especially in the Anlaysis section. There is some definite repetition of some stuff that's already in the article, but I'll have to sift through it all -- word by word -- to make sure. Having access to all these databases is like opening a whole new world to me. I'm more excited than bewildered -- but they're both definitely in there.


 * I don't have time to even start sifting through them today, but I have plenty of free time lately, and I'm sure I'll get to it by the end of next week. Bobnorwal (talk) 17:31, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Okay. You might want to leave a short note to the FAC that you've got access and you'll be getting to it. Curly Turkey (gobble) 22:35, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Enid Blyton
Could you take a look at Enid Blyton?

People have made it full of cites to the Daily Mail and the section on dated attitudes and altered reprints seems to have been hijacked by Daily Mail readers. The Daily Mail is a British tabloid that is so right wing as to be almost comic, I wouldn't call it a reliable source on anything. Susan Grace Bellerby (talk) 12:38, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

WikiCup 2014 January newsletter
The 2014 WikiCup is off to a flying start, with, at time of writing, 138 participants. The is the largest number of participants we have seen since 2010. If you are yet to join the competition, don't worry- the judges have agreed to keep the signups open for a few more days. By a wide margin, our current leader is newcomer, whose set of 14 featured pictures, the first FPs of the competition, was worth 490 points. Here are some more noteworthy scorers:


 * and were the first people to score, for the good article Tropical Storm Bret (1981) and its good article review respectively. 12george1 was also the first person to score in 2012 and 2013.
 * scored the first ITN points for 2014 North American polar vortex.
 * scored points for an early good topic, finishing off Featured topics/She Wolf.
 * scored the first bonus points of the competition, for his work on Typhoon Vera.
 * has scored the highest number of bonus points for a single article, for the high-importance Jurassic Park (film).

Featured articles, featured lists, featured topics and featured portals are yet to play a part in the competition. The judges have removed a number of submissions which were deemed ineligible. Typically, we aim to see work on a project, followed by a nomination, followed by promotion, this year. We apologise for any disappointment caused by our strict enforcement this year; we're aiming to keep the competition as fair as possible.

Wikipedians interested in friendly competition may be interested to take part in The Core Contest; unlike the WikiCup, The Core Contest is not about audited content, but, like the WikiCup, it is about article improvement; specifically, The Core Contest is about contribution to some of Wikipedia's most important article. Of course, any work done for The Core Contest, if it leads to a DYK, GA or FA, can earn WikiCup points.

If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article candidates, a featured process, or anywhere else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on WikiCup/Reviews. If you want to help out with the WikiCup, please do your bit to help keep down the review backlogs! 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 yourself from WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn (talk • email), The ed17 (talk • email) and Miyagawa (talk • email) 19:54, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

March GOCE copyedit drive

 * }

WikiCup 2014 February newsletter
And so ends the most competitive first round we have ever seen, with 38 points required to qualify for round 2. Last year, 19 points secured a place; before that, 11 (2012) or 8 (2011) were enough. This is both a blessing and a curse. While it shows the vigourous good health of the competition, it also means that we have already lost many worthy competitors. Our top three scorers were:


 * , a WikiCup newcomer whose high-quality scans of rare banknotes represent an unusual, interesting and valuable contribution to Wikipedia. Most of Godot's points this round have come from a large set of pictures used in Treasury Note (1890–91).
 * , a WikiCup veteran and a finalist last year, Adam is also a featured picture specialist, focusing on the restoration of historical images. This month's promotions have included a carefully restored set of artist William Russell Flint's work.
 * , another WikiCup newcomer. WikiRedactor has claimed points for good article reviews and good articles relating to pop music, many of which were awarded bonus points. Articles include Sky Ferreira, Hannah Montana 2: Meet Miley Cyrus and "Wrecking Ball" (Miley Cyrus song).

Other competitors of note include:


 * , who helped take Thirty Flights of Loving through good article candidates and featured article candidates, claiming the first first featured article of the competition.
 * , who claimed the first featured list of the competition with Natalia Kills discography.
 * , who takes the title of the contributor awarded the highest bonus point multiplier (resulting in the highest scoring article) of the competition so far. Her high-importance salamander, now a good article, scored 108 points.

After such a competitive first round, expect the second round to also be fiercely fought. Remember that any content promoted after the end of round 1 but before the start of round 2 can be claimed in round 2, but please do not update your submission page until March (UTC). Invitations for collaborative writing efforts or any other discussion of potentially interesting work is always welcome on the WikiCup talk page. Remember, if two or more WikiCup competitors have done significant work on an article, all can claim points equally.

If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article candidates, a featured process, or anywhere else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on WikiCup/Reviews. If you want to help out with the WikiCup, please do your bit to help keep down the review backlogs! 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 yourself from WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn (talk • email), The ed17 (talk • email) and Miyagawa (talk • email) 00:01, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

An RfC that you may be interested in...
As one of the previous contributors to Infobox film or as one of the commenters on it's talk page, I would like to inform you that there has been a RfC started on the talk page as to implementation of previously deprecated parameters. Your comments and thoughts on the matter would be welcomed. Happy editing!
 * This message was sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) on behalf of &#123;&#123;U&#124;Technical 13&#125;&#125; (t • e • c) 18:26, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

WikiCup 2014 March newsletter
A quick update as we are half way through round two of this year's competition. WikiCup newcomer (Pool E) leads, having produced a massive set of featured pictures for Silver certificate (United States), an article also brought to featured list status. Former finalist (Pool G) is in second, which he owes mostly to his work with historical images, including a number of images from Urania's Mirror, an article also brought to good status. 2010 champion (Pool C) is third overall, thanks to contributions relating to naval history, including the newly featured Japanese battleship Nagato. , who currently leads Pool A and is sixth overall, takes the title for the highest scoring individual article of the competition so far, with the top importance featured article Ian Smith.

With 26 people having already scored over 100 points, it is likely that well over 100 points will be needed to secure a place in round 3. Recent years have required 123 (2013), 65 (2012), 41 (2011) and 100 (2010). Remember that only 64 will progress to round 3 at the end of April. Invitations for collaborative writing efforts or any other discussion of potentially interesting work is always welcome on the WikiCup talk page; if two or more WikiCup competitors have done significant work on an article, all can claim points equally. If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article candidates, a featured process, or anywhere else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on WikiCup/Reviews. If you want to help out with the WikiCup, please do your bit to help keep down the review backlogs! 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 yourself from WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn (talk • email), The ed17 (talk • email) and Miyagawa (talk • email) 22:55, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

GOCE March drive wrapup
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:57, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

GOCE copy-edit to Not in Front of the Children: "Indecency," Censorship, and the Innocence of Youth
‎

WikiCup 2014 April newsletter
Round 3 of the 2014 WikiCup has just begun; 32 competitors remain. Pool G's was Round 2's highest scorer, with a large number of featured picture credits. In March/April, he restored star charts from Urania's Mirror, lithographs of various warships (such as SMS Gefion) and assorted other historical media. Second overall was Pool E's, whose featured list Silver certificate (United States) contains dozens of scans of banknotes recently promoted to featured picture status. Third was Pool G's who has produced a large number of good articles, many, including Falkner Island, on Connecticut-related topics. Other successful participants included, who saw three articles (including the top-importance Ian Smith) through featured article candidacies, and , who saw three lists (including the beautifully-illustrated list of plantations in West Virginia) through featured list candidacies. High-importance good articles promoted this round include narwhal from, tiger from and The Lion King from. We also saw our first featured topic points of the competition, awarded to and  for their work on the Sega Genesis topic. No points have been claimed so far for good topics or featured portals.

192 was our lowest qualifying score, again showing that this WikiCup is the most competitive ever. In previous years, 123 (2013), 65 (2012), 41 (2011) or 100 (2010) secured a place in Round 3. Pool H was the strongest performer, with all but one of its members advancing, while only the two highest scorers in Pools G and F advanced. At the end of June, 16 users will advance into the semi-finals. If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article candidates, a featured process, or anywhere else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on WikiCup/Reviews. If you want to help out with the WikiCup, please do your bit to help keep down the review backlogs! 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 yourself from WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn (talk • email), The ed17 (talk • email) and Miyagawa (talk • email) 17:56, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

WikiCup 2014 June newsletter
After an extremely close race, Round 3 is over. 244 points secured a place in Round 4, which is comparable to previous years- 321 was required in 2013, while 243 points were needed in 2012. Pool C's was the round's highest scorer, mostly due to a 32 featured pictures, including both scans and photographs. Also from Pool C, finished second overall, claiming three featured articles, including the high-importance Grus (constellation). Third place was Pool B's, whose contributions included featured articles Russian battleship Poltava (1894) and Russian battleship Peresvet. Pool C saw the highest number of participants advance, with six out of eight making it to the next round.

The round saw this year's first featured portal, with taking Portal:Literature to featured status. The round also saw the first good topic points, thanks to and the 2013 Atlantic hurricane season. This means that all content types have been claimed this year. Other contributions of note this round include a featured topic on Maya Angelou's autobiographies from, a good article on the noted Czech footballer Tomáš Rosický from and a now-featured video game screenshot, freely released due to the efforts of.

The judges would like to remind participants to update submission pages promptly. This means that content can be checked, and allows those following the competition (including those participating) to keep track of scores effectively. This round has seen discussion about various aspects of the WikiCup's rules and procedures. Those interested in the competition can be assured that formal discussions about how next year's competition will work will be opened shortly, and all are welcome to voice their views then. If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article candidates, a featured process, or anywhere else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews. If you want to help out with the WikiCup, please do your bit to help keep down the review backlogs! 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 yourself from WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. and 18:48, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

WikiCup 2014 August newsletter
The final of the 2014 WikiCup begins in a few short minutes! Our eight finalists are listed below, along with their placement in Round 4:


 * , a WikiCup newcomer, finished top of Pool A and was the round's highest scorer. Godot is a featured picture specialist, claiming large numbers of points due to high-quality scans of historical documents, especially banknotes.
 * 1) is a WikiCup veteran, having been a finalist every year since 2010. In the semi-final, he was Pool B's highest scorer. Cas's points primarily come from articles on the natural sciences.
 * 2) was Pool A's runner-up. Czar's points come mostly from content related to independent video games, including both articles and topics.
 * 3) was Pool B's runner-up. Another featured picture specialist, many of Adam's points come from the restoration of historical media. He has been a WikiCup finalist twice before.
 * 4) won the WikiCup in 2012 and 2013, and enters this final as the first wildcard. She focuses on biology-related articles, and has worked on several high-importance articles.
 * 5) is the second wildcard. George's points come primarily from meteorology-related articles. This year and last year, George was the first person in the competition to score.
 * , the third wildcard, was the 2010 champion and a finalist last year. His writes mostly on military history, especially naval history.
 * , the fourth and final wildcard, has participated in previous WikiCups, but not reached any finals. Bloom's points are mostly thanks to did you knows, featured lists and good articles related to sport and national symbols.

We say goodbye to this year's semi-finalists. ,, , , , and  have all performed well to reach this stage of the competition, and we hope they will all be joining us again next year.

There are two upcoming competitions unrelated to the WikiCup which may be of interest to those who receive this newsletter. The Stub Contest will run through September, and revolves around expanding stub articles, especially high-importance or old stubs. In addition, a proposal has been made for a new competition, the GA Cup, which the organisers plan to run next year. This competition is based on the WikiCup and aims to reduce the good article review backlog.

There is now a thread for brainstorming on how next year's WikiCup competition should work. Please come along and share your thoughts- What works? What doesn't work? What needs changing? Signups for next year's competition will be open soon; we will be in touch. If, at this stage of the competition, you are keen to help the with the WikiCup, please do what you can to participate in review processes. Our finalists will find things much easier if the backlogs at good article candidates, featured article candidates, featured picture candidates and the rest are kept at a minimum. 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 or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. and 22:09, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

Not My Life
Hi Bob,

Thank you for copy-editing Not My Life last November. I have started a featured article candidacy and I thought that, as the article's copy-editor, you might be interested in participating in the discussion. Any constructive comments you are willing to provide there would be greatly appreciated.

Neelix (talk) 18:59, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

WikiCup 2014 September newsletter
In one month's time, we will know our WikiCup 2014 champion. Newcomer has taken a strong lead with a featured list (historical coats of arms of the U.S. states from 1876) and a raft of featured pictures. Reigning champion is in second place with a number of high-importance biology articles, including new FA Isopoda and new GA least weasel. , who is in his fifth WikiCup final, is in third, with featured articles Pictor and Epacris impressa.

Signups for the 2015 WikiCup are open. All Wikipedians, new and experienced, are warmly invited to sign up for the competition. Wikipedians interested in friendly competition may also like to sign up for the GA Cup, a new WikiCup-inspired competition which revolves around completing good article reviews. 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 or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. and 22:11, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

WikiCup 2014: The results
The 2014 WikiCup champion is, who flew the flag of the Smithsonian Institution. This was Godot13's first WikiCup competition and, over the 10 months of the competition, he has produced (among other contributions) two featured lists and an incredible 292 featured pictures, including architectural photographs and scans of historical documents. , 2012 and 2013 WikiCup champion, came in second, having written a large number of biology-related articles. , WikiCup finalist every year since 2010, finished in third.

A full list of our prize-winners follows:


 * wins the prize for first place and the FP prize for 181 featured pictures in the final round.
 * wins the prize for second place and the DYK prize for 65 did you knows in the final round.
 * wins the prize for third place and the FA prize for four featured articles in the final round.
 * wins the prize for fourth place
 * wins a final 8 prize.
 * wins a final 8 prize.
 * wins a final 8 prize.
 * wins the GA prize for 27 good articles in round 2 and the review prize for 28 good article reviews in round 1.
 * wins the FL prize for three featured lists in round 2.
 * wins the FPo prize his work on featured portals.
 * wins the topic prize for a nine-article featured topic in round 3.
 * wins the news prize for 28 in the news articles in round 3.

Congratulations to everyone who has been successful in this year's WikiCup, whether you made it to the final rounds or not, and a particular congratulations to the newcomers to the WikiCup who have participated this year. We warmly invite all of you to sign up for next year's competition. Discussions and polls concerning potential rules changes are also open, and all are welcome to participate. The WikiCup judges will be back in touch over the coming months, and we hope to see you all in the 2014 competition. Until then, it only remains to once again congratulate our worthy winners, and thank all participants for their involvement! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. and 22:51, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

WikiCup 2015 is just around the corner...
Hello everyone, and may we wish you all a happy holiday season. As you will probably already know, the 2015 WikiCup begins in the new year; there is still time to sign up. We have a few important announcements concerning the future of the WikiCup.


 * We would like to announce that Josh (J Milburn) and Ed (The ed17), who have been WikiCup judges since 2009 and 2010 respectively, are stepping down. This decision has been made for a number of reasons, but the main one is time. Both Josh and Ed have found that, over the previous year, they have been unable to devote the time necessary to the WikiCup, and it is not likely that they will be able to do this in the near future. Furthermore, new people at the helm can only help to invigorate the WikiCup and keep it dynamic. Josh and Ed will still be around, and will likely be participating in the Cup this following year as competitors, which is where both started out.
 * In a similar vein, we hope you will all join us in welcoming Jason (Sturmvogel 66) and Christine (Figureskatingfan), who are joining Brian (Miyagawa) to form the 2015 WikiCup judging team. Jason is a WikiCup veteran, having won in 2010 and finishing in fifth this year. Christine has participated in two WikiCups, reaching the semi-finals in both, and is responsible for the GA Cup, which she now co-runs.
 * The discussions/polls concerning the next competition's rules will be closed soon, and rules changes will be made clear on WikiCup/Scoring and talk pages. While it may be impossible to please everyone, the judges will make every effort to ensure that the new rules are both fair and in the best interests of the competition, which is, first and foremost, about improving Wikipedia.

If you have any questions or concerns, the judges can be reached on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, on their talk pages, or by email. We hope you will all join us in trying to make the 2015 WikiCup the most productive and enjoyable yet. You are receiving this message because you are listed on WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn (talk), The ed17 (talk), Miyagawa (talk), Sturmvogel 66 (talk) and Figureskatingfan (talk) 18:53, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

December 2014 GOCE newsletter
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 03:15, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

GOCE holiday 2014 newsletter
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:44, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

WikiCup 2015 launch newsletter
Round one of the 2015 WikiCup has begun! So far we've had around 80 signups, which close on February 5. If you have not already signed up and want to do so, then you can add your name here. There have been changes to to several of the points scores for various categories, and the addition of Peer Reviews for the first time. These will work in the same manner as Good Article Reviews, and all of the changes are summarised here.

Remember that only the top 64 scoring competitors will make it through to the second round, and one of the new changes this year is that all scores must be claimed within two weeks of an article's promotion or appearance, so don't forget to add them to your submissions pages! 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 WikiCup/Reviews. However, please remember to continue to offer reviews at GAN, 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. Good luck! , and

If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself from the mailing list or alternatively to opt-out of all massmessage mailings, you may add Category:Opted-out of message delivery to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:51, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

GOCE 2014 report
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 23:54, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

February 2015 GOCE newsletter
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:52, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

GOCE March newsletter
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:41, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

WikiCup 2015 March newsletter
That's it, the first round is done, sign-ups are closed and we're into round 2. 64 competitors made it into this round, and are now broken into eight groups of eight. The top two of each group will go through to round 3, and then the top scoring 16 "wildcards" across all groups. Round 1 saw some interesting work on some very important articles, with the round leader owing most of his 622 points scored to a Featured Article on the 2001 film Final Fantasy: The Spirits Within which qualified for a times-two multiplier. This is a higher score than in previous years, as had 500 points in 2014 at the end of round 1, and our very own judge,  led round 1 with 601 points in 2013.

In addition to Freikorp's work, some other important articles and pictures were improved during round one, here's a snapshot of a few of them:
 * took Bumblebee, a level-4 vital article, to Good Article;
 * worked-up the Malaysia Airlines Flight 370 article, also to Good Article status;
 * developed an extremely timely article to Good Article, taking Magna Carta there some 800 years after it was first sealed;
 * And last but not least, worked up a number of Featured Pictures during round 1, including the 1948 one Deutsche Mark (pictured right), receiving the maximum bonus due to the number of Wikis that the related article appears in.

You may also wish to know that The Core Contest is running through the month of March. Head there for further details - they even have actual prizes!

If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article candidates, a featured process, or anywhere else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on WikiCup/Reviews. 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 yourself from WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. , and

Thanks for your assistance! Miyagawa (talk) on behalf of Wikipedia:WikiCup.

(Opt-out Instructions) This message was send by through MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 04:54, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

April 2015 GOCE newsletter
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:28, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

WikiCup 2015 May newsletter
The second round one has all wrapped up, and round three has now begun! Congratulations to the 34 contestants who have made it through, but well done and thank you to all contestants who took part in our second round. Leading the way overall was in Group B with a total of 777 points for a variety of contributions including Good Articles on Corona Borealis and Microscopium - both of which received the maximum bonus. Special credit must be given to a number of high importance articles improved during the second round.
 * was one of several users who worked on improving Ulysses S. Grant. Remember, you do not need to work on an article on your own - as long as each person has completed significant work on the article during 2015, multiple competitors can claim the same article.
 * took Dragonfly to Good Article for a 3x bonus - and if that wasn't enough, they also took Damselfly there as well for a 2x bonus.
 * worked up Alexander Hamilton to Good Article for the maximum bonus. Hamilton was one of the founding fathers of the United States and is a level 4 vital article.

The points varied across groups, with the lowest score required to gain automatic qualification was 68 in Group A - meanwhile the second place score in Group H was 404, which would have been high enough to win all but one of the other Groups! As well as the top two of each group automatically going through to the third round, a minimum score of 55 was required for a wildcard competitor to go through. We had a three-way tie at 55 points and all three have qualified for the next round, in the spirit of fairness. The third round ends on June 28, with the top two in each group progressing automatically while the remaining 16 highest scorers across all four groups go through as wildcards. Good luck to all competitors for the third round! , and  16:24, 4 May 2015 (UTC)