Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Good articles/GA Cup/Judges/Archive 1

Newsletter
I have done a draft for a newsletter. Can you guys have a look. Cheers --  NickGibson3900 Talk 04:13, 7 September 2014 (UTC)


 * I'm going to say "maybe" to that design. I was thinking of going somewhere along the lines of the this. But maybe the older design would be more suited for what we need.-- Dom497 ( talk ) 12:52, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
 * I like Nick's design, but the green background is too dark, making it difficult to read. Please lighten.  Also, could we wait to publish it until after we've gotten everything else set up?  I'm working on the Scoring section today. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 14:19, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
 * I think before we do ANYTHING, all the pages for the GA Cup (scoring, home page (the proposal page shouldn't not be this), etc) must be set up and finalized.-- Dom497 ( talk ) 14:43, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Also, maybe we could use the "tabs" to help with navigation? I've added them to the main page for an example.-- Dom497 ( talk ) 14:52, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
 * I like the tabs, since it parallels the design at the GA page. I've completed the scoring page, and have linked it to the appropriate tab. Also, I made some changes to Nick's newsletter draft; if you guys like it, we can go ahead and publish/disseminate it.  Didya notice that we haven't even started things yet, and we already have two participants?  Woo-hoo! ;)
 * I'm rethinking how we should set up the Submission section. I mean, we're not going to be nearly as extensive as the other competitions, so perhaps we should set it up in sections like the Stub Contest.  So yes, I've changed my mind; let's go with a Entries section. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 22:51, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Take a look at the third point under the general rules section. I left a question that should be addressed.-- Dom497 ( talk ) 01:34, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I saved before I should have. Thanks for the catch, I fixed it. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 02:08, 8 September 2014 (UTC)::::
 * Just to clear things up. Are you three actually competing of just running the competition?  NickGibson3900 Talk 05:37, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Not me. I'm not sure I'll even be a "judge". I really have to focus on my last year of high school.-- Dom497 ( talk ) 11:28, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
 * And Figureskatingfan, the change you made to the third point is a repetition of the last point. The third point says that a review must be done ONLY by you. So what happens if I ask for a SECOND OPINION?-- Dom497 ( talk ) 11:29, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Indent: Duh, sorry I guess I wasn't thinking when I wrote it, but I've corrected the oversight and moved the point up in the list. I think it's clear now: if your review needs a second opinion, it still counts, if it's complete. Nick, I don't think that judges should compete, and Dom, I totally understand if you're too busy. I appreciate your input, anyway. We really should clarify, though: who's willing to serve as a judge? I am, since I'm the fool who came up with the idea. Q, are you in? And Nick, are you interested?

I think we're close to beginning the contest, but I still have a few more issues. Dom, thanks for constructing the tabs. Go to the individual talk pages for my questions. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 19:18, 8 September 2014 (UTC)


 * I don't know exactly if I can be a judge. like Dom, the school year has just began and things are just settling in. I've got a very busy life for the next few days. I might me more available then.  ΤheQ Editor   Talk? 00:51, 9 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Here's what. I'll be a judge...and I'll try to do as much as I can.-- Dom497 ( talk ) 02:01, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Great, Dom. I'll tell you more: I'll be the "main" judge and you guys can assist as needed.  I'm willing to do a lot of the work, but I'm not willing to do it alone. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 02:06, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
 * As I live in Australia, my school year is coming to an end and over most of the competition I'll be on holidays. I reckon I could work beside Christine as a helper/secondary judge. Also I guess that means I'll have to take my name off the participation list.  NickGibson3900 Talk 05:34, 9 September 2014 (UTC)g


 * Good idea, I guess I'll just be a minor judge. I'll help however I can.  ΤheQ Editor   Talk? 12:59, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
 * I have made some changes to the newsletter so take another look. Also, I think I'm done "developing" the pages so I guess we could send out the newsletter within the next day or two and start advertising the Cup.-- Dom497 ( talk ) 00:57, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Nice!!! I think it is ready for delivery. BTW which list are we using for recipients?  NickGibson3900 Talk 01:31, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm going to use the WikiProject list for the first newsletter and then whoever wants to continue receiving GA Cup newsletters can add their names to the page linked in the newsletter.-- Dom497 ( talk ) 18:49, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

Signpost
So after looking into it, it appears as if we can have a full blown report on WikiProject Good Articles if we want (similar to this one) all before the GA Cup would start (perfect timing actually....it would be in the Sept. 24th Signpost). Anyone up for that? That will surely attract attention.-- Dom497 ( talk ) 22:57, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
 * I think that would be great. I will participate if it's set up.  Is there any way we can have them ask questions about the long backlog, since that's the main reason we're conducting a competition?  I think that the focus should be on the backlog and the steps we're trying to take to solve the problem. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 02:04, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
 * I'll get going on the request.-- Dom497 ( talk ) 02:11, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
 * So I got us a report on the 24th (we can go on the 31st if we want but I think that's a bit late). This is more for Figureskatingfan, but you can ask the questions to yourself here! For everyone else, are you interested in being part of the report?-- Dom497 ( talk ) 19:02, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Forgive my denseness, but does that mean that we can go and write our own questions? If so, I should be able to get to it by tomorrow night.  Do we want to talk about what questions we want here first? Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 00:54, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
 * I think we should draft some questions here first. I think that we can all answer a few questions and at least two should answer per question. Also I think, Christine, if she wants to, should be the main answerer as she will be main judge and, Dom and I can answer the questions we think we are the most knowledgable. One more point: I think we should make it so the answers to the questions are saying exactly the sam thing as this is boring for the reader.  NickGibson3900  Talk 05:54, 10 September 2014 (UTC) BTW if everyone is "watching" this page, pings are know longer needed.

About the newsletter: I think it should be sent out ASAP to all users on the WP:WPGA newsletter list. I think before the signpost if possible.  NickGibson3900 Talk 05:54, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
 * I think we need to wait a bit longer before we send out the newsletter. I'm still making changes to the pages (creating new ones, re-organizing, etc) so the GA Cup pages are not finished yet. Also, did you forget to put "not" in this sentence or you mean what you wrote, "I think we should make it so the answers to the questions are [not] saying exactly the sam thing as this is boring for the reader."-- Dom497 ( talk ) 18:40, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, I did forget to put not, whoops thats changes the meaning of the sentence doesn't it.  NickGibson3900 Talk 05:46, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
 * I agree, but how about we set a deadline? We need to give ourselves plenty of time to get the word out.  Dom, when do you think you'd be able to finish everything?  End of the weekend (9/14)?  Also, I think that when Dom decides we're ready, regardless of the time, that's when the newsletter should go out.  Sooner rather than later, though. ;) Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 15:35, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

Questions

 * What motivated you to join WikiProject Good Articles? Do you review featured articles as well?

We all answer this one.


 * The Good Article nomination process has been known to have a large backlog. Why is this?


 * What exactly is the GA Cup and its purpose?


 * Why did you decide to create the GA Cup?


 * What ever happened to the Backlog Elimination Drives?

I don't know if this is a good one. I'm just making a list of all the possible questions.


 * Is there anything else you'd like to add?

Per all WikiProject reports.


 * What are the project's most urgent needs? How can a new contributor help today?

Again, per WikiProject reports, I think we have to include this one.

-- Dom497 ( talk ) 19:56, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

's comments on 's questions
--  NickGibson3900 Talk 05:46, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
 * What motivated you to join WikiProject Good Articles? Do you review featured articles as well? - Good
 * The Good Article nomination process has been known to have a large backlog. Why is this? - Good
 * What exactly is the GA Cup and its purpose? or * Why did you decide to create the GA Cup? - They are to similar in meaning to have both. I'd say the first one.
 * What ever happened to the Backlog Elimination Drives? - I'd say no but thats just my thinking
 * Is there anything else you'd like to add? - Good
 * What are the project's most urgent needs? How can a new contributor help today? - Good


 * I have pasted a bunch of questions that we can answer here.-- Dom497 ( talk ) 20:27, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

Questions and comments by Coin945

 * 1) The GAC backlog is severe as is. Do we have the resources to cope with a massive influx?--Coin945 (talk) 18:54, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Influx of what? Participates or nominations?-- Dom497 ( talk ) 19:46, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
 * I meant an influx of nominations. But it appears there is no focus on bringing articles up to GA for review. Only reviews. So this is moot.--Coin945 (talk) 20:47, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

You bring up a good point. For the first GA Cup, we will only be focusing on reviews. Depending on what happens, we may introduce writing good articles next year. Also, as far as I know, awards will be barnstars (unless you or someone else wants to donate).-- Dom497 ( talk ) 19:46, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
 * 1) GA is not like destubbifying or focusing on improving one article within a period of time. This is about creating really good articles.. Multiple times. We'd better have good prizes.--Coin945 (talk) 18:54, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
 * People around here seem to be self-motivated so we should be fine. But asking people to bring multiple articles up to GA in the future may cause problems.--Coin945 (talk) 20:47, 10 September 2014 (UTC)


 * 1) won't making people rush GAs result in much more shoddy work?--Coin945 (talk) 18:54, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
 * We've been working on the details. If you take a look around at some of the pages (which we are still making changes to), we will make sure no one is rushing reviews. They will be disqualified if found to be doing so.-- Dom497 ( talk ) 19:46, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Just playing devil's advocate to ensure all possible negatives are explored. You seem to have things under control.--Coin945 (talk) 20:47, 10 September 2014 (UTC)


 * 1) Where are going to find the contestants? Is there anyone willing to take part atm?--Coin945 (talk) 18:54, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
 * We got a report going into the Singpost in a few weeks...we're also going to send out a newsletter. If no one wants to participate, oh well. We tried...but we do believe there will be interest...maybe not 100 people interest, but interest for sure.-- Dom497 ( talk ) 19:46, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Just playing devil's advocate to ensure all possible negatives are explored. You seem to have things under control.--Coin945 (talk) 20:47, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for your feedback! I've brought the writing articles "idea" to the attention of the other judges. "Writing" never came across anyone's mind. I just want to see where they stand with it (I rather not having the "writing" component for the first competition). Also, are you planning on participating?-- Dom497 ( talk ) 22:07, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

I will add a few things in response to Coin. Personally, I don't think we should ever change the focus of the GA Cup to include writing GAs. That doesn't seem to be a problem here; the issue we're trying to address and hopefully solve is to increase the number of reviews. The pressing issue and problem we're trying to solve with the GA Cup is to decrease the long backlog, the consequence of which will be to increase the number of GAs. In my mind, the more GAs WP has, the more potential FAs it will have, which will mean higher quality articles. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 15:53, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

Question
I've been thinking about this for a while so I just want to see where your heads are at. With the current set-up, we have to check every single review. With a 500 article backlog, and all the other things we are doing, that's a lot of work for us. I think getting a bot to do some of the work is out of the question for this GA Cup (unless one of you know a bot creator willing to make a bot that, for example, updates the "Pool" section with points). So now I ask this question: Is reviewing every single review even feasible? But maybe I'm not understanding something. By "reviewing reviews", do we mean that we will look at a reviews byte size, look at the article byte size, and look up the nomination date (as this is what the points are based off of)? If so, then ignore everything I said, because I believe that is feasible. If we mean literally looking at the entire review and making sure everything is perfect, then we have a problem.-- Dom497 ( talk ) 19:12, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't think that we'll need to be as thorough as you're talking about, Dom. I think that looking at the criteria you list won't take that much time, since they're easily checked.  The only thing that I think might take a little longer is figuring out the reviews byte size.  Is there a bot that can help us with that?  Of course, the initial stages will take more time, but as we get further along, the time required will greatly decrease.  We may have to elicit more judges to spread out the work more. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 19:58, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't think a bot exists. We can use this tool (I have no idea if it works on talk pages) or this tool.-- Dom497 ( talk ) 20:20, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Ok, thanks for the response. Easy enough.--Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 20:52, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Hmm. We could ask the bot operator of the bot for the WikiCup as it would probably have a similar code however it's just easier to use the script or tool. Also three competitors signed up before any "press release" is a good sign --  NickGibson3900 Talk 21:02, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

Note
Hey guys, this cup is looking great. It seems from the above posts that the GA cup may need help with judging. Would you like me to judge? No is a reasonable answer, and I completely understand. Cheers! Brandon (MrWooHoo) • Talk to Brandon!  22:30, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm kind of busy right now, so may you three decide. The user has 4 reviews Talk:Ernest Radcliffe Bond/GA1 Talk:Vaillancourt Fountain/GA1 Talk:Nitro (Adlabs Imagica)/GA1 Talk:Obsessed (2009 film)/GA4. Cheers,  ΤheQ Editor   Talk? 23:02, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
 * First, thanks for showing initiative and commitment to the GA Cup! For now, I'm going to say stick with being a participant. If something changes, I'll let you know before the competition starts.-- Dom497 ( talk ) 01:55, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

Talk here
All discussions relating the running of the GA cup should take place here.  NickGibson3900 Talk 02:09, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

This is due to the modification of the main GA cup talk page my Dom that makes it simple for users to ask question. He removed all our discussions and I think it was the correct thing to do.  NickGibson3900 Talk 02:12, 13 September 2014 (UTC)


 * I thought you would get pinged a million times...I moved everything here.-- Dom497 ( talk ) 02:13, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Just to keep things in one place we probably should delete on of the pages. It depends if we want all that old stuff. As you can see below we still have all that here it just doesn't clog the page up.  NickGibson3900 Talk 02:26, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

Job Description
Ok, I really don't want to write this just because it's going to be long but given that I've developed almost all the pages I don't have much of a choice (because you all need to know how everything works!).

Here is our "Job Description". I'm going to go in order of the tabs.

Sign-ups

 * Make sure the table is functioning as it should and there are no syntax or format errors. If there is, FIX IT!!!
 * Add all the names to the "Pool" page. More about this below.
 * On October 15, replace the text saying sing-ups are closed and replace the green button with:

Scoring

 * Make sure this page is on your watchlist. The whole point of this is to make sure no one try's to do anything stupid (change the rules). Also, if one of us (the judges) change the page, we all know what the change. All this equals no confusion (hopefully!).
 * Enforce the rules! If someone breaks the rules, give them a warning on their talk page and document it here. On their second offence, disqualify them (see "Disqualification" section below). Also, keep that page on your watchlist. Hopefully we won't have to use it.

Pools

 * All the names from the sign-up page should be listed here. Also, all the rows should be highlighted in green.
 * If the participant requests to withdraw and you grant it (there shouldn't really be any cases where you wouldn't grant it), replace their row with the purple colour (copy colour code from the key box). If they get disqualified, replace the colour with red. Also, once we figure out who moves on to the next round, I'll try to provide instructions on what to do next.
 * Keep this page on your watchlist. Any changes that show a particapte is adding points should be reverted immediately as judges are the only ones who can claim/reward points.

Submissions

 * All participants should have their own subpage. If they don't are are just listed their reviews on the submissions page, tell them to make a subpage (or do it for them).
 * The box at the top pretty much explains how the GA Entry table works.
 * When awarding points, replace the  with the following format. For example, if the nomination was 2 months old, the review was 31kb in size and the article was 60kb, the following should be placed:   (14 points for nomination date (14 for nomination (4 for age, 10 for base points), 5 for article size, 2 for review size) KEEP IT IN THIS ORDER
 * Then, go to the "Pool" page and update the points for the participate as needed.

Disqualification

 * In the event of a disqualification do the following:


 * 1) Update the "Pool" table to say that the participate was eliminated (red colour). Set all points to zero.
 * 2) Make a note on their subpage saying they have been disqualified.
 * 3) Remove subpage from the "Submissions" page.
 * 4) Leave a note on their talk page saying they have been disqualified.
 * 5) Update the Disqualification Log (linked above).

I'm half asleep so I probably missed something. If you have something to add, feel free to add it!-- Dom497 ( talk ) 02:46, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

Replies to above
Ok, looks good. I have every single one of the GA Cup pages watchlisted so will notice any malicious changes. Also it says that 128 will progress to second round. How many participants to you guys think we can get. I'd say 40-60 max. I will also add links to this talk page's corresponding wikipedia page with links instructions for judges and quick links. --  NickGibson3900 Talk 03:14, 13 September 2014 (UTC)


 * As stated on the main page, the numbers are just placeholders.-- Dom497 ( talk ) 03:40, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Ok, must of missed it sorry. --  NickGibson3900 Talk 03:42, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

I have everything watchlisted, too. Dom, I'd like to go on the record thanking you for all your hard work. I never even considered most of what you've added to all the pages, so as the GA Cup's main judge and the one who came up with the idea, I really appreciate it. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 04:38, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
 * I second Christine.  NickGibson3900 Talk 04:43, 13 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Take one last look at the newsletter....I think we're ready to send it.-- Dom497 ( talk ) 23:04, 13 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Yep I'd say so. As you have  user rights you will have to send it out but I'm sure there are jobs the rest of us can do to to help you. Also, I was thinking should we ask the WikiProject Good articles coordinator to put up some banners? We could put one at the top of GAN and the main WPGA page?. --  NickGibson3900  Talk 00:10, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
 * I think it's ready to go too. And by the way, I don't think the WikiProject Good articles has a coordinator like WP:GOCE.  ΤheQ Editor   Talk? 02:52, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
 * We don't have a coordinator. I'll create a banner when I get a chance and post in on the nomination page.-- Dom497 ( talk ) 15:28, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

It looks like we're ready to send the newsletter. Dom, would you take care of that? If you instruct me about how to do it, I can send it in the future. Thanks, and off we go! ;) Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 17:29, 15 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Ya, I was going to send it out yesterday but I got caught up with other things. I'll send it out within the next hour. You can request the user right here.-- Dom497 ( talk ) 18:46, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

Watchlist announcement.
Do you guys think its reasonable to have a watchlist announcement? It may draw some more attention.  ΤheQ Editor  Talk? 19:49, 15 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Beat ya to it!-- Dom497 ( talk ) 19:52, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

Barnstars
So I just took a looks at Nicks barnstars and I think we should go for a more "creative" set of awards that have never been seen before rather than the standard ones that everyone always gets. I'm up for mixing some images together. Remember, we want to have people participate again next year and even if they don't other users who are looking at other user pages will be attracted to something they've never seen before (they'll look at the barnstar and look into the GA Cup, and BOOM, there's on more participant next year! Thoughts.?-- Dom497 ( talk ) 20:00, 17 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Even we if we modified a free-licensed medal...that is better than the "standard" barnstars.-- Dom497 ( talk ) 20:07, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't have a very creative mind, but what sort of other GA barnstars do you have in mind. So far, I just imagine the good article icon in front of a barnstar.  ΤheQ Editor   Talk? 01:16, 18 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Neither do I, but we can do this where whatever place the participant came in goes in the blank circle. I'm working on a few more.-- Dom497 ( talk ) 21:12, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Ehhh...the others ones didn't come out good. I'd say we actually stick with the one above and just replace the number for everyone. We'll come up for something for second and third.-- Dom497 ( talk ) 21:20, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
 * How about this?  ΤheQ Editor   Talk? 20:50, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Mine and yours could both work. What does everyone else think?-- Dom497 ( talk ) 21:25, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Nice Q, yours is really good. Would that be for everyone or the winner?  NickGibson3900 Talk 22:17, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
 * I thought the cup was for the winner....-- Dom497 ( talk ) 23:04, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Yeah it is. What I meant does everyone get the same barnstar (except the winner). Surely a user who makes the final expects a better prize than a user who gets knocked out in the first round - Also better prizes for higher places will make people try harder (eg. More reviews) --  NickGibson3900 Talk 23:28, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Well, in that case, Q's barnstar could be if you are eliminated in a certain round.....that leaves 5 more barnstars needed!-- Dom497 ( talk ) 23:43, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

Scoring update
First of all, is this on everyones watchlist? If so, I'll stop pinging. Second, I was just taking a look at the GA Report and I noticed that the bot logs the oldest nomination in each section. Could we add a fourth "bonus" category for reviewing the oldest nomination in a sub-section (5 points?)? See "Summary" section at the bottom. Or is this just going to complicate things?-- Dom497 ( talk ) 19:29, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, this page is on my watchlist. I think it's an excellent idea but we should limit it to that the oldest nomination has to be over 60 days or something. There are topics that the oldest nomination is 2 days.  ΤheQ Editor   Talk? 21:06, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes every GA cup page (except individual submissions) are on my watchlist. I agree with TheQ Editor that only nominations over 60 days should be counted and I like Dom497's idea (with the 60 day threshold). --  NickGibson3900 Talk 05:24, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Don't bother pinging me anymore, either. I also agree with Q about only counting reviews older than 60 days in the subsections.  Exceptions should be for complicated topics, like Mathematics, but we can discuss that if and/or when it comes up.  I support the idea, but my only issue with it is that I'm concerned that the scoring system might get too complicated.  I think we should stop here, and not include any further scoring changes. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 16:15, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
 * So should we add it or just leave it to the 3 categories. Also, given that it looks like none of you received a ping I sent last night, CLICK HERE.-- Dom497 ( talk ) 19:08, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
 * I went ahead and added the new criteria. BTW, I got the ping, but wasn't able to respond until today. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 19:24, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
 * After thinking about it today, I'm going to say that we should actually remove this extra bonus criteria. It does make things more complicated (given the 60 day and pink box restrictions). I know this is kinda counter-productive but I now think it should go. My mistake.-- Dom497 ( talk ) 18:56, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

Newsletter
Please check out the newsletter that I plan on sending out when we are less than 48 hours from the start of the GA Cup. I still didn't understand how the rounds will work so one of you can fill in the blank (for this newsletter just explain how Round 1 will work in terms of how many people will move on, etc. We will save Round 2 until later). Also, it's not done. I still plan on adding more later. Feel free to add more yourself.-- Dom497 ( talk ) 20:53, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
 * I like it so far, it just that number 2 is a little confusing. The GA cup starts at October 1st but people can still sign up after until October 15th. And judging by the sign up rate, after the GA cup starts, there are still going to be at least 15 people who will join. Maybe we should not include that part until October 15th where all the numbers are settled.  ΤheQ Editor   Talk? 21:01, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
 * The Wikicup is set up to accept competitors until half-way through Round 1, so the October 15th date is based on it. I think that we need to be clear from the start when sign-ups will be closed.  We could say that depending upon the numbers, up to 128 will progress.  If we have less than 128, we can say that all will progress to Round 2.  When sign-ups close on the 15th, we can publish another newsletter advertising the actual numbers, and explain that since it's our first year, the numbers are fluid and ask for everyone's indulgence. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 23:19, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Good idea. What do you think? Vacation Q (talk) 23:25, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Can I ask why you are using two accounts? There's nothing wrong with it, I just don't want participants to get confused. In regards to Figureskatingfan, what's the point of having no one get eliminated in the first round if we are going to use a randomizer to put people into pools (by the way what program are we using?)? Like you said when I proposed the "revision", you said sorting people by how many points they have isn't the best idea. Also, not to be a debby downer, but lets be semi-realistic, I don't think we'll get another 100 people in a week.-- Dom497 ( talk ) 00:29, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Also, I just updated the "Task Description" page with some important info. So everyone read it!!!-- Dom497 ( talk ) 00:46, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
 * From Oct. 1 to Oct. 29 (Round 1), everyone's in the same pool. If we get the numbers we want, the top 128 would be put into pools for Round 2.  If we don't, everyone would go into Round 2, in randomized pools.  I'll need to do some research, but I'm sure there's a software program out there that randomly places people into groups.  Heck, we could even go low-tech and put all the names in a hat and pull them out randomly, but I think using a program would be more fair.  And I dunno about not getting 100 more people.  The Signpost hasn't come out yet this week, and I'm confident that we get many of our numbers afterwards.  If we don't get 100, we'll get at least twice what we have now, which will be about 50, which is a number we could work with, I think.  Remember, this is our first year; 50 participants would be a success, I think. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 01:19, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
 * For the accounts thing, I was in public when I wrote that. I'll make sure I won't use that account when addressing particpants. Plus, I just couldn't stay away from Wikipedia in a Free Wi-fi zone. I can handle randomizing the participants into pools if you want. It shouldn't be that hard with Javascript. But if you find a already built program that could do it, tell me. I'm just be the backup.  ΤheQ Editor   Talk? 01:52, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
 * How about this?  ΤheQ Editor   Talk? 01:59, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, I agree with Q about Christine's idea been a a good one. I think that 128 is slightly optimistic. My query is this? Say we get 101 participants. 101 is prime so pools won't be equal. Lets say top three progress to the next round, won't that give an advantage to users is smaller pools? Or is the plan the top scorers from all groups combined? Will the number of none top-two placing participants change due to numbers? These are probably very obvious but I can't seem to find the answer? -  NickGibson3900 Talk 08:52, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
 * That program is fine....saves me (or you) time to program one. Also, the solution to the prime number thing is wildcards....which brings me to ask this: would we randomly choose a wildcard or is it the participant with the next highest amount of points? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dom497 (talk • contribs)
 * If 101 is the case, we can divide them into ten groups of 8 and three groups of 7. But then again, it would be unfair. So how about we eliminate enough people in the first round to get a multiple of 8. For example, if it's 96, then 12 groups of 8. -> 6 groups of 8 ->3 groups of 8->2 groups of 6->1 group of 6. Dada!  ΤheQ Editor   Talk? 12:56, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Sounds good. In the newsletter all I'm going to say is that because sign-ups close on the 15th, its impossible to tell exact numbers. For that reason, we can only say that everyone will be split into pools of even numbers for Round 2.-- Dom497 ( talk ) 03:09, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Also, just so we don't leave participants in the dark, to give them some "comfort", I mentioned in the upcoming newsletter that if you are in the top 15 at the end of the round, you are guaranteed to move on to Round 2. With 30 participants as of right now, I don't see why we could cut the competition into half so soon. Right? BTW, the whole point of telling them the top 15 guarentee is that they will all have something to aim for until we figure out the real number (which will need to be figured out ASAP after sign-ups close). Make sense?-- Dom497 ( talk ) 03:37, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Click on the newsletter linked above and give it a read through. If find any mistakes or something to add, go ahead and edit!-- Dom497 ( talk ) 13:45, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Looks good. I like the part about the top 15 being guaranteed to move to Round Two.  Nice work! Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 13:58, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Did a minor copy edit. Should be okay.  ΤheQ Editor  Talk? 21:52, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

First submission
Well guys, we already have our first submission. I've checked it, but could someone go behind me and make sure I've done it correctly? Thanks. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 19:17, 1 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Ya forgot to update the participants sub-page!-- Dom497 ( talk ) 19:20, 1 October 2014 (UTC) Got confused. But you didn't quite do it right. I fixed it so take a look at how it should look like....I know, its confusing but if follow the code on the main Judge page, you should be fine.-- Dom497  ( talk ) 19:28, 1 October 2014 (UTC)


 * IMPORTANT I changed the scoring sizes to number of words because the DYK tool no longer gives article sizes in bytes....rather words.-- Dom497 ( talk ) 19:20, 1 October 2014 (UTC)


 * I think that changing it into words is an excellent idea, because I am truly horrible at math, so it's easier now. Thanks for correcting me. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 19:52, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

IMPORTANT NOTICE
DO NOT accept or decline any reviews from Jonas Vinthe r. Seems like he's already going on a passing spree so I'm looking into it.-- Dom497 ( talk ) 19:33, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
 * So it seems like he is making quite good suggestions....but is passing the article before the nominator even gets a chance to read them.....I'm fine with this as I have notified him to just put the article on hold in the future . I'm also fine with giving him the points....everyone agree?-- Dom497 ( talk ) 19:42, 1 October 2014 (UTC)


 * User:StudiesWorld basically did the same thing, but I awarded him points because his comments weren't dependent upon the nominator responding. Jonas has comments the articles' nominators need to address, but he's passing them, anyway.  He is stating that his feedback was minor, but I think we should hold off awarding any points and encourage him to wait for a response.  I mean, he's missing out on what could be some valuable points, in the review size portion, and that's how we should frame it to him.  I will go do that now. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 20:15, 1 October 2014 (UTC)


 * I retracted the points I gave him for two reviews (for now).-- Dom497 ( talk ) 20:16, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Why aren't Jonas' points adding up????-- Dom497 ( talk ) 23:59, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

I think I fixed it (I just recounted)....-- Dom497 ( talk ) 00:03, 7 October 2014 (UTC)


 * I just fixed it too. As of this moment, Jonas should have 185 points. Sorry. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 00:08, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Tutorial
I just want to make sure everyone gets this right. When awarding points:


 * (#, -, -) --> 10 + nomination date points.
 * (-, #, -) --> Article size points
 * (-, -, #) --> Review points


 * Signature should only be ....don't worry about the date.

Then translate the points onto the "Pools" page. Any questions ask now!-- Dom497 ( talk ) 19:59, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Click here for a more detailed explanation (kinda).-- Dom497 ( talk ) 20:07, 1 October 2014 (UTC)


 * With the sig don't you mean three ~ not four because three doesn't give a date.  NickGibson3900 Talk 23:12, 1 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Fixed.-- Dom497 ( talk ) 23:38, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Stupid mistake
I made a stupid mistake for the scoring. It should be characters not words. If you think a review that you already approved may be affected, please re-assess. Sorry.-- Dom497 ( talk ) 13:14, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
 * That makes me feel a lot better. I'm glad I boldly counted characters instead of words.  ΤheQ Editor   Talk? 13:17, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
 * And I did the opposite. I will reassess what I've done, but I may not be able to get to it until tomorrow night by the earliest and Monday morning by the latest.  I have a big paper in the on-line class I'm taking due by midnight Sunday night.  If one of you guys could do it for me, I'd much appreciate it.  Just tell me that you've done it! Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 04:25, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Will do now. Sorry.-- Dom497 ( talk ) 13:08, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Done.-- Dom497 ( talk ) 13:24, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Dom. My busy spell is over for now; I appreciate the back-up. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 04:59, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

That makes more sense. Also, we have only seen two points claimed for review length, do you guys think the criteria are to high or do you think it is OK. —  NickGibson3900 Talk 05:21, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Lets wait for Round 2 to change the review length.-- Dom497 ( talk ) 23:45, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I've been thinking about this. I hope that we all recognize that as we all go through the scoring system, we'll discover bumps and areas of improvement.  For example, I agree that we need to re-think review length, and increase the points for fewer characters.  Also, I think that we should think about changing points for article length, perhaps increase either the points awarded or the characters.  I think what's worked well is the 10 base points and the length of nomination.  I think that when we figure out the stats, we should include how many older articles were reviewed.


 * I know it's only been 7 days into the Cup, but I'm very enthusiastic about how things are going. With just a little over 50 contestants, about 50 articles have been reviewed thus far.  I think that's a resounding success!  I'm really looking forward to seeing the end results, and feel confident that we're going to make a real difference, after all the attempts that have been made to reduce the backlog.  Good on ya, all! Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 00:19, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Suggested rule change
Guys, I've been thinking about the User:Jonas Vinther situation. On the one hand, I personally love his enthusiasm, and I don't want to discourage it. His reviews will reduce the backlog alone, but I'm afraid that it's squelching the competition. He's already gotten over 200 points, which I'm sure is discouraging everyone else from competing. If he was passing articles just to earn points, we could disqualify him, but his reviews are actually adequate. I've been spending more time reviewing his entries, and have found no reason to not accept them.

Despite all that, I'm not sure it's fair that Jonas is passing all these articles without waiting for the nominators' response. It seems like all the other competitors are waiting. Therefore, I'd like to propose a rule change for Round 2: that competitors can't pass an article without a response from the nominator. If there is no response in the allowed week, the article must be failed. We can address complaints by saying that in other competitions, you have to wait until you get a response from reviewers to earn points, so it shouldn't be any different in the GA Cup.

I also think that in the interest of fairness, we should allow all competitors to move onto the next round. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 02:15, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
 * agreed and agreed —  NickGibson3900 Talk 02:38, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I agree with everything up to the third paragraph. I'll write up a quick newsletter to inform everyone; also, I'm going to raise the guarantee to 25 (half of what we have). Regarding everyone moving on to the next round, I don't think the idea is going to go well with a lot of people. Even before the cup started, one person was already concerned that everyone would move on to the next round.


 * Regarding Jonas, is he still passing articles with issues even after we told him not to?????-- Dom497 ( talk ) 11:26, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Hi everyone. I had a discussion on my talk page with a few judges about passing an article when leaving suggestions for improvements. Since then, I have not passed articles that need improvements without first putting it on hold or have the nominator respond right away. It's true that I spend all my Wikipedia time on the cup as I'm really determined to win, but that's just enthusiasm which ... I hope ... is a not illegal on Wikipedia. I calculated that I could review more articles a day if I fix a lot of the sentence or grammar errors myself as I read the article, and always announce on the review pages that if the article contain less than ten sentence or grammar errors I will fix them myself. Also ... I still haven't received points for six of my reviews, that's like sixty points! I wont be reviewing anymore until I get points for those. Jonas Vinther (speak to me!) 13:21, 9 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Dom, I respectfully disagree. As judges, it's up to us to make these kinds of decisions.  I think that up to now, our scoring system has been unfair.  Jonas has demonstrated that.  If we explain that, and tell everyone that we're moving everyone through to make up for our error, I think that most will understand.  We're still hammering out things because it's our first year and there are issues that we haven't anticipated.  I also think that we should extend the sign-up period to Nov. 1 and implement the new rule on Oct. 15 to correct our error.


 * Jonas, we don't want to discourage your enthusiasm, but it's squelching competition, and discouraging other competitors from reviewing GAs, which in the long-run, discourages GA reviewing. See, one of our goals is to encourage more regular reviewers.  It's true that it doesn't seem like you're passing articles for the sake of passing articles anymore, which is why I've awarded you points.  I also copy-edit articles that I review because sometimes it's easier to fix problems than directing a nominator to correct grammar or spelling errors.  However, there are always things that can be improved, even if an article fulfills the GA criteria.  For example, I just checked your review of Charles Heaphy, which uses a limited amount of sources--about five books.  That strikes me as too few for the topic and length of the article.  You could've asked the nominator if he used all the pertinent sources available, and then waited for his response.  See, the point is that these articles are improved.  I think the Heaphy article has the potential to go to FAC, so it's a real disservice to not help the nominator prepare.


 * For the purposes of the GA Cup, I stand by my proposal to change the rules and require contestants to wait for a response from the nominator. You've illuminated a flaw in the scoring system; as you can see from other discussions on this talk page, there are others.  I think that we need to correct them.  I've been busy, but I'll do my best to score your six remaining reviews. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 14:42, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
 * You must do what you feel is best. But in the end, there can only be one winner, which (in my opinion) should be the most determined. Jonas Vinther (speak to me!) 16:13, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Jonas, please look at my talk page. Also, the judges have lives and you are not ranked as any more important than any of the other participants. As I told you before, we will get to them....there is still 3 weeks until the round ends! Figureskatingfan, can you please elaborate on the flaws/rule changes that need to be made? Thanks!-- Dom497 ( talk ) 18:50, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Also, just an after thought...if we move everyone to the next round, doesn't that mean everyone will likely stop reviewing until November? I don't think that's exactly what we want to happen....-- Dom497 ( talk ) 18:57, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Jonas, we're trying to think of ways to be the most fair for everyone. I don't think that it's unreasonable to correct a flaw in the scoring system. It would be unfortunate if you just quit without being willing to work with us as we figure out the best way to run this contest. I think that expecting a response wouldn't take away from your determination, and that you could still win.

Dom, I see two flaws thus far; one is major and the other minor. The major one is what we're discussing here: adding the requirement that reviewers have to wait for some kind of response from the nominator before they pass the article. I think we need to change this rule immediately. The other flaw is mentioned above, in the "Stupid mistake" section, after the indent removal. This is something we should consider, but not right away, perhaps the next GA Cup we hold. I see your point about folks stopping reviewing if we move everyone along. We can either move 25 as you suggest or we can extend the competition one month. I'm willing to go with consensus. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 19:39, 9 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Oh, so your saying that we should judge by words?-- Dom497 ( talk ) 20:10, 9 October 2014 (UTC)


 * No, not at all. Can we table that part of the discussion until after we've resolved the first issue, about requiring a response, please? Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 20:18, 9 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Well I'm all for requiring a response if needed.-- Dom497 ( talk ) 20:21, 9 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Dom, sorry; I just wanted to keep things simple. This is what I was talking about, cut-and-paste from above: I've been thinking about this. I hope that we all recognize that as we all go through the scoring system, we'll discover bumps and areas of improvement. For example, I agree that we need to re-think review length, and increase the points for fewer characters. Also, I think that we should think about changing points for article length, perhaps increase either the points awarded or the characters. I think what's worked well is the 10 base points and the length of nomination.  This is something that we can discuss later, perhaps for next competition.


 * So are we agreed that we need to change the rules to require contestants to wait up to one week to before they can pass articles? And that we're moving 25 forward to the next round?  If so, we need to explain it in the next newsletter.  I can write up something if you like. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 16:13, 10 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Yes, we're changing the rules......this is how the new rule should read, "In the event that you make suggestions to improve the article or point out issues that need to be fixed, you cannot pass the article until all issues/suggestions have been resolved. Failure to follow this rule will result in disqualification." We are moving to a guaranteed 25 participants (for now....that's just about half of the total number of participants). And I've already started writing a newsletter here.-- Dom497 ( talk ) 18:59, 10 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Also, as flawed as the scoring system may be, we cannot make any major changes until Round 2.-- Dom497 ( talk ) 19:04, 10 October 2014 (UTC)


 * I agree that we shouldn't make any rule changes until Round 2.


 * Dom, your version of the rule change still allows a competitor to pass an article without giving any feedback, which we've discovered is a problem. I think we should require that competitors leave some feedback.  How about wording it this way: "Your review must provide feedback/suggestions for improvement, and then you must wait until the nominator has responded and all issues/suggestions have been resolved before you can pass the article.  Failure to follow this rule will result in disqualification."  Of course, this is the new rule, so we shouldn't implement it until Round 2, although we can inform contestants of our intention.  For the rest of Round 1, we should emphasize that articles can't be passed until feedback is addressed.  Also, I don't think that we should change the points system until the next competition. In other words, the only major rule change in Round 2 is the rule about requiring feedback. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 05:10, 11 October 2014 (UTC)


 * I agree with everything you've said. Because I don't really have the time right now, could you write the newsletter?-- Dom497 ( talk ) 22:34, 11 October 2014 (UTC)


 * I'm busy too, but I have some time this evening. I'll write up something (probably kinda short) if you publish it.  I'll let you know when I'm done. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 23:14, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

, as promised, I've written the newsletter, also here. Could you publish it, ASAP? Thanks. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 04:52, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Woah, are we sure every single participant is on the mailing list? -  NickGibson3900 Talk 05:14, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, I believe that they are. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 06:39, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Actually there not.....over half of the participants never received the September 27th newsletter! Anyway, I've updated the subscription page.-- Dom497 ( talk ) 14:16, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

Email
Please check your emails.-- Dom497 ( talk ) 15:24, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
 * -  NickGibson3900 Talk 04:42, 13 October 2014 (UTC)