Wikipedia talk:Take the lead!/2016 archive

__NONEWSECTIONLINK__

(Untitled)
- this is what I am running. A contest at writing or re-writing leads. One x £25 voucher for the crispest most engaging lead, and 7 x £25 vouchers for 7 random entries as determined by a lucky dip. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 03:53, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Cas, sounds like a great idea. John V has previously made me aware of the mobile/scroll-down issue ... and it bothered me. Tony   (talk)  04:33, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Good plan to revive the lead improvement effort, but I'd prefer it if there were some quality filter on entries to the lucky dip, to ensure that all leads winning prizes have, in fact, been significantly improved Noyster (talk),  08:37, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Well, if judged by people - entries must be articles with no leads or leads focussing on just one aspect of article (I have seen this often), and successful entries must have leads covering a breadth of the articles' important points (just musing on whether I can say, minimum 4 items...? or not...). But yes, now that you raise it I am thinking about it.... Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 11:15, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

, As the deadbeat creator of WP:LEDETEAM, I should thank you for this. I still feel this is an important project, though at the time I probably didn't realize how big of a project it was to take on. I'll probably try contribute a bit to this competition though. &#160; Discant X  11:12, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
 * as a contestant or judge? Either would be great....Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 11:15, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
 * A contestant. I'm honestly not sure if I've been around here long enough or studied the writing style of a 'good' lead well enough to judge what a fitting lead is. To go off on a slight tangent — a large part of writing well is mimicking and understanding the style of what you are to be writing to, and seeing as the lead is such an important part of the article, it really takes an experienced editor to write or revise a suitable one. I personally haven't taken the time to study that writing style well enough, which is why I realized I probably was in over my head in creating that project in the first place. I'll still try to make some entries here, but I don't think I'd be the best person to be judging other people's. Thanks for the suggestion though, cheers :) &#160; Discant X  11:35, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Cool! our first contestant....Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:01, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

Good idea!
An intelligent variation, focusing on a key weakness. However, I imagine the tagging of articles with short leads is about as random and useless as every other type of WP tagging, and will mainly show minor articles with very low views (later:Yes, I've checked, and it is exactly that). Is it possible to produce a list of articles that are long, but with very short leads? Ideally only those with a reasonable number of views, or rated as higher importance. That would focus people's effort in the most useful way. Johnbod (talk) 16:56, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Surely a bot could do that. Who to ask? and ...any ideas? Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 19:24, 30 November 2015 (UTC)


 * I guess something that picks up large articles of (say) larger than 5 kb with a lead of less than (say) 30 words? Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 04:59, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

Money
How do you afford the vouchers? Out of your own pocket or the WMF money? 4nn1l2 (talk) 20:01, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I have similar plans for other Wikipedias. I just want to know if I can count on the WMF money? 4nn1l2 (talk) 12:11, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
 * The vouchers come from a microgrant supplied by Wikimedia UK. See here. I waited till I was 100% greenlit before I announced running it. The Core Contest and Stub Contest were run the same way. cheers, Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:50, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

Very short articles
It may be a good idea to disqualify any article with prose size less than 5000 characters, because usually these articles don't have much to expand the lead section anyway. For example, this is reasonable, but you cannot expand the lead section of Thai comics without expanding the rest of the article. sst✈(discuss) 09:54, 14 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Looking at the scoring and prizes, I have to say that this is a very bad idea. A more effective way would be to instead give vouchers to editors who have expanded the most number of lead sections. I think a scoring system based on article prose length prior to lead expansion (the longer the article, the higher the score) and number of article views (the higher number of views the article gets, the higher the score received) would be appropriate. sst✈(discuss) 09:58, 14 December 2015 (UTC)


 * I've got to disagree. A minimum article length could be in order (no stubs with one line leads, for example), but as the length guidelines at WP:LEADLENGTH indicate, a good lead is representative of the article's length. So someone who expands a long article with a longer lead would in this system be rewarded highly. On its surface rewarding people purely on word count might seem agreeable, but it doesn't necessarily look at the quality or, even more important to me, relevance to the article. That said, you suggest giving vouchers to those who have expanded the most articles. I would rather see a random draw occur among those who meet the minimum requirement of what is considered to be a good lead. Those who contribute more are rewarded by being given a higher chance of winning, rather than it being a high score sort of thing. &#160; Discant  X  11:19, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
 * What we are doing is this - a random draw with each entry counting as a 'raffle ticket' as it were, but one prize for the best, most engaging lead that we read. I guess we're finding our way a bit with this. Enough of a prize that it's not trivial yet not enough to make a big drama out of. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:53, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Cas Liber Funny you say that, because I was almost going to say we make a big 'drama' out of it. Would you be open to listing this competition at MediaWiki:Watchlist-details or somewhere similar? It needs some better advertisement. Plus, we just had WP:Wikipedia Asian Month, maybe this time around we can focus on a particular part of an article rather than a particular part of the world? &#160; Discant  X  13:10, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Advertise/spread the word ++++. as of now we have zero entrants...so any would be good! Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:12, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I do have an entry in the works in a text editor btw. Part of the problem I'm finding is articles with poor leads are poor articles to begin with, so it's hard to write a good lead without a major overhaul to the whole article. But hopefully you'll have at least one entry on that list soon! &#160; Discant  X  13:56, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Yeah...although an initial dump of facts needn't take that long, and its all for the Good of the 'Pedia. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:15, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

Remember...
Log at Take the lead!/Entries if you're thinking of entering...Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:54, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

Other places to look
came up with a bunch of articles lacking a lead at. I tagged a bunch but might inspire some folks. Otherwise, maybe looking at wikiprojects or just hitting 'random' abunch of times. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:56, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
 * More here. Hazard SJ 06:43, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

Template
Cas, I haven't kept up, but I just noticed the "lead is inadequate" banner at the top of Pierre Boulez. Is producing a lead for that kind of article within the ambit? Would it be worth pointing people to the list of articles that link to that banner? Tony  (talk)  12:54, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes - all these templates populate the Category:Wikipedia introduction cleanup from December 2015 for example, once a bot has dated them. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:26, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

Contest now live
...damn quiet 'round here....Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:36, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

Nomination of judge
. I nominate as a judge for the take the lead! contest. Cheers! 11:44, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Extra set of hands'd be great...wanna ask him? Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:42, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

Wow...
that is an interesting statistic (see File:Number_of_sections_opened_per_pageview_(m.Wikipedia,_Dec_1,_2015,_percentages).png folks!). I have been musing over whether to run this again sometime. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 21:32, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
 * That's pretty good evidence for the importance of the lead, and therefore we must place much more weight on lead improvement. It must function as bait to get readers to read the article. -- BullRangifer (talk) 03:44, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Indeed. Journalists are told to assume 80%-odd of readers never get beyond para 2, so i'm not surprized. Johnbod (talk) 03:53, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

Question is, how many articles are lacking leads I wonder. Over 400 entries have been submitted (which is great), but only a small precentage of articles have the or  tags.....still, it's a start and has got me thinking about a second run later this year or early next. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 05:14, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Interesting contest :-) I have been concentrating on the lead for nearly two years with the list of ones worked on being here Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 07:17, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Tags are a very poor way of assessing any WP problem if you ask me. Many if not most of those with missing lead tags are short near-stubs where sections are not a great need. Johnbod (talk) 08:12, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Would there be a place for a bot to flag up articles probably in need of a lead? - articles with (a) no text between the header templates and the first section header, (b) no section headers at all and over say 10kB of text. Worth a try at bot requests? If so should the bot tag the articles with or just place them in Category:Pages missing lead section? Noyster  (talk),  09:33, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

What are you doing
The article Dip slope had a lead section. Someone moved that lead section down, then rewrote what they had just moved as the new lead by eliminating and rearranging words so it is now without meaning, other than the first sentence.

The lead existed before the contest. The article needed help already, but not by improperly rewriting what existed, then claiming a new lead had been written when the existing one had just been moved then repeated badly and without comprehension.

✅Why is that okay?


 * It shouldn't be.


 * Actually, the article did not have a lead previously. It consisted of two lengthy paragraphs and a short section on landslides. The lead section I wrote is an attempt to summarise the content of the article. If I have misunderstood the main text and summarised it incorrectly, please alter my summary. If the main text is inaccurate, it should be corrected and a new lead section written to match the new content. It is not the purpose of a lead section to correct the main body of the article or to introduce any new information not mentioned elsewhere. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:20, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
 * You have no idea what you wrote, do you? You think it actually has the same meaning as what you removed because you sprinkled the same words in? That is bad.

Right now....
Ok folks we have 605 entries from 20 editors. I have asked WMUK to spin the wiki-barrel and come up with 8 lucky numbers between 1 and 605 for the voucher winners........................(drumroll) ................... in case folks were wondering, I don't think I can pick a winner so will do 8 random numbers instead of 7 plus one judge's choice. Cheers and good luck.....Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:08, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Weren't you going to give 3 days for people to post their entries here? "The deadline for editing is 23:59 UTC on 31 January, and all entries have to be submitted to the contest by 23:59 UTC three days later (3 February) to be included in the final count." Though it seems most of us have been doing so very promptly anyway, but you now have 615 entries.  Anyway, I think it has been a great success, and many thanks to the checker(s)! A couple of mine have not been checked btw, relief, vitrification and celadon.  Johnbod (talk) 15:02, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Facepalm - you're right. I forgot that and was charmed by everyone's promptness - 72 hours it is....Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 01:23, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Additionally, now in the clear light of day, not picking a winner is a silly idea so will trawl through for the one that grabs me the most. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 01:41, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

Winner - raffle winners to come
This has been hard to judge - trying to come up with a winner after comparing broad with narrow articles and common versus technical, and those that had some material to begin with. Based on all-round enjoyment of reading, my favourite is Italian Renaissance (well done !), with some honourable mentions going to Italian art, Matilda of Flanders, Propranolol, Ivermectin, Quinine, Codeine, Athlete's foot, Burial and 1975 European Cup Final. Anyway, I will get WMUK to draw up a bunch of winning raffle tickets now....Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 01:26, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks to the judges for their hard work! And thanks to all competitors for some great work. Johnbod (talk) 04:08, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

The winning raffle-ticket articles are African paradise flycatcher, Ceiling, Holostei, F. A. Sampson, Shortjaw cisco, Red and white giant flying squirrel (all, and Propofol . WMUK will be in contact shortly to post out vouchers. Cheers, Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:08, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Thank you. There were about 600 total approved articles of which I improved the leads of 320 (or 319!). The draw has thus disproportionately benefited me. Please could you leave me with three prizes and redraw the other three prizes, distributing them among the other competitors? Cwmhiraeth (talk) 13:23, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Thankyou for that. I will get in touch with WMUK. I felt uneasy at how the numbers came out and am grateful for your charity :) Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 11:23, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Very generous Cwmhiraeth - with that effect on a random number generator, you might consider the lottery! Johnbod (talk) 14:08, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

O-kay then, we have...(drumroll).... with Heaven & Hell Tour, with 2006 Book Sense Book of the Year Awards, and finally  with 1961 Isle of Man TT. Folks, WMUK will be in touch to organise vouchers. Enjoy and thanks again everyone for participating :) Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 19:51, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks for running the competition Cas Liber, it was great. Really generous of Cwmhiraeth for giving up 3 of his prizes. Nathan121212 (talk) 11:30, 2 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Thank you Cas Liber for all the work you put in on the contest. Congratulations to Johnbod and the other winners. And thank you Cwmhiraeth for being generous.  It's exciting and motivational to be able to win in a contest :) Cheers, TheBlinkster (talk) 19:06, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Glad you folks all had fun :) Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 19:59, 4 March 2016 (UTC)