Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Good articles/GA Cup/Judges/Archive 2

Round 1/2
So with all this craziness regarding Jonas, as Figureskatingfan has brought up, it is only fair to allow everyone to move on. Here is what I propose, everyone who has at least one review complete will move onto Round 2 (where we will still split people into pools).-- Dom497 ( talk ) 14:03, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I'd agree with this compromise, as long as we advertise it. Of course, that could mean that all contestants would review the one article so that they could move on, meaning that all move forward, anyway.  Essentially, that would mean that everyone who has signed up will be put into pools.  I'm okay with that. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 15:23, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I feel like some participants signed-up but later realized that reviewing GA's doesn't interest them/they don't have time/etc, so the "at least one review" thing is to filter out these people (unless you want to increase the review number).-- Dom497 ( talk ) 15:25, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I also agree. I'd say one review should be sufficient. We need to make sure the competitors know though -  NickGibson3900 Talk 04:37, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Sounds good. I'll compose a newsletter tomorrow to send out on the 15th.  I promise to get the dates right this time. ;) Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 05:24, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Update: I've created the new newsletter here . Dom, could you send it out tomorrow?  And please, please look it over so I'm not embarrassed again! ;) Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 16:15, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Round 2 newsletter
I've created a newsletter for round two here. The details will need to be filled in when the round ends. We must remember to copyedit the newsletter. -  NickGibson3900 Talk 08:02, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Looks good; I saw no typos. I think, though, that we should add the rule change, and warn competitors that we're going to be strict about it.  How about wording it like this, which is based on our discussion in the "Suggested rule change" section above: Round 1 displayed a weakness in the rules, which we are correcting with a new rule that will begin at the start of Round 2.  We believe that this change will make the competition more inherently fair.  The new rule is: 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.  The judges will strictly enforce this new rule. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 23:11, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

Boost of energy
Maybe I'm thinking about this too early, but I have noticed that at the start of the competition, there is a boost if energy. Everyone is filled with spirit and reducing over 100 articles from the backlog. That was the spirit I liked to see, but after a while as you can see in this backlog report, the amount of articles is slowly growing again. I don't know if we will see the same spirit in the second round, if we do, great! But if we don't, after the GA cup, we would need some better ideas to reduce the backlog. What do you think?  ΤheQ Editor  Talk? 12:56, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I noticed that, too, TheQ. I think part of it is that it's natural for activity to decrease the end of a round.  People are thinking that the numbers won't change all that much, especially with the change of allowing contestant to move forward with just one review.  I'm sure that activity will increase at the start of the next round.  Also, I don't think that we should consider what happened at the beginning of Round 1 as typical, especially with the JonasVinther situation. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 19:33, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Round Two Pools
There's 24 hours until Round 1 ends so I doubt there will be any reviews done by the people who have not reviewed an article yet. I have created the pools on the project page with a randomiser. Can someone make them into the proper format in tables? Thanks,  ΤheQ Editor   Talk? 02:06, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
 * ✅ BTW, I just added a few more comment to the Walter Wu review -  NickGibson3900 Talk 02:35, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm counting 28 on the submissions page but 27 in the pools. Problem!-- Dom497 ( talk ) 19:06, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Why are only the top 3 contestants in Pools A, B, and C moving forward, and only the top 2 in Pools D, E, and F? Doesn't seem fair to me. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 19:43, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Bottom two are the ones who get eliminated. With 3 pools having 5 people and 2 having 4, this seems like the only fair way IMO. It also cuts the competition into half for Round 3 (approximately)-- Dom497 ( talk ) 19:44, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I finished the pools. Should it be 7 pools of 4 or 4 pools of 7? Thanks,  ΤheQ Editor   Talk? 23:30, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm good with how they look here: WikiProject Good articles/GA Cup/Pools/Round 2. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 23:49, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
 * There are still reviews that need to be approved (I can't right now...wayy to busy).-- Dom497 ( talk ) 00:25, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I have some time tomorrow and Friday to close out final tasks. We may need to re-do the pools; I'll make a report if and/or when anyone needs to be added to the Round 2 Pool.  This is why we close one round a few days before the next one starts: to give us enough time to prepare.  I also made some tweaks to the newsletter, and I'll add changes if needed.  We'll git er done! ;) Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 04:21, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Yeah, the one that I "re made" was an updated version. The one that we have so far includes 27 participants. We have 28 participants now so I had to re make the pools. So 4 pools of 7 or 7 pools of 4? Thanks,  ΤheQ Editor   Talk? 21:17, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
 * My vote is seven pools of four.-- Dom497 ( talk ) 23:13, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
 * My vote is seven pools of four. —  NickGibson3900 Talk 23:30, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Everyone please take a look at the main page. I have updated the schedule accordingly. It looks like the GA Cup will end on February 26.-- Dom497 ( talk ) 23:35, 30 October 2014 (UTC)


 * I agree with Dom and Nick, seven pools of four. I've also finished the Round Two newsletter; Dom, would you please publish it before the end of tomorrow (UTC)? Thanks, and thanks to all. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 23:41, 30 October 2014 (UTC)


 * As you all probably noticed I set up automatic archiving of this page. Threads will disappear if their has been to discussion in them is 7 days. To change that change the 7 in the code to whatever you think it should be -  NickGibson3900  Talk 23:44, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Notice
Guys, just to note, I am changing my username from NickGibson3900 to NG39. -  NickGibson3900 (soon to be NG39)Talk 06:26, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

Scoring Question
On the scoring page for page size, it says "Also, these points will be assessed at the end of the review.". Why? Shouldn't it be at the start of the review? I know it doesn't really matter too much but it just doesn't make sense.  ΤheQ Editor  Talk? 21:46, 6 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I think it makes sense the way it is. In the end, though the reviewer reviews the initial article, after making suggestions, the article could undergo some major changes. As a result, it is the "updated" article that meets GA criteria, not the old one.-- Dom497 ( talk ) 23:01, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

Round 4
and With a little over 4 hours left in Round 3, the pools are up-to-date, the next newsletter has been written, and the next pools are ready to go. Please look over the newsletter for any errors and/or omissions. Dom, would you mind publishing the newsletter on or before the 1st?

I'm a little concerned about you guys. I've done most of the points awarding in Round 3, which was almost an overwhelming task if it weren't for the fact that I've been on my work break for the past 10 days. With only 8 contestants in Round 4, I think it'll be more easily manageable, although I have a feeling they're going to be just as enthusiastic. I'm proud that something I created has been so successful, and I appreciate your assistance, especially at the beginning, with all the set-up work. I think that in the future (and I think that we've been so successful, that the GA Cup will continue), things will require a great deal less labor in the early rounds. I also wasn't willing to let the competition die, mostly for my own ego's sake. But it'd be nice if you guys could award more points this round. We need to make some decisions about rule changes, ect., for the 2nd GA Cup.

At any rate, I'll set up the submissions for the next round and get things ready to go. Did you guys hear that I've been recruited to judge for the WikiCup? I dunno, is that foolish or what? ;) I'm hoping that you guys can continue in our project; if not and this has proven to be too much for you, let me know so we can work something out. I think we've made a real difference, something that's not always easy to do in Wikipedia. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 22:53, 29 December 2014 (UTC)


 * To be completely honest, I've been following the discussions and progress throughout the round; however, I being working on an iOS app day in and day out, and that seems to have to taken over my priorities. Typical me getting carried away with things....-- Dom497 ( talk ) 23:42, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Oh and regarding the WikiCup....congrats! :D -- Dom497 ( talk ) 23:47, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Dom. Sorry for repeating myself, but if you could help out in January... ;) Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 00:26, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I see that you've already completed some end-of-round tasks. Thanks, man! Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk)

Barnstars
I've created a list of barnstars to use WikiProject Good articles/GA Cup/Barnstar. (Post by TheQ - I am signing so post will archive  NG39  (Used to be NickGibson3900) Talk 07:12, 7 November 2014 (UTC))
 * Are we good for the barnstars above? I'll start giving them for Round 2.-- Dom497 ( talk ) 23:52, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Yah sure, but I suppose you should also give them out for Round 3, since it's now over. Thanks. To be honest, I totally spaced about barnstars, since I was busy doing other stuff, here and IRL. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 00:30, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

Wrapping Up
As we begin to wrap up the competition, I thought it wouldn't be a bad idea to ask everyone what they thought of the competition. I created a google form with a bunch of question that will help when it comes to planning for next year. If you have a Google account I can add you so you can edit the form.-- Dom497 ( talk ) 21:27, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
 * You're right, Dom; it is a good idea. I'll take a look and send you feedback in email.  I just finished updating the latest newsletter; would you mind sending it out?  I'll take care of the final pool, etc. tomorrow.  Thanks! Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 01:58, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Round 5 Question
How are we going to deal with reviews that are not complete when Round 5 ends. We cannot use the rule we've been using for the other rounds because there is no sixth round! I was thinking that so long as their appears to be some effort/progress made in the review we would give half the amount of points the user would normally receive for the review. Example: 2 month old nomination gets 7 points.-- Dom497 ( talk ) 03:48, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
 * My short answer is that we'd do what the Wikicup does, and count only the points earned during the final round. That's the general rule, anyway.  Unfinished reviews in the final round simply can't be counted, I believe, since the contestants know that only points completed during the round count.  That's the challenge of being in the finals--ensuring that all reviews are completed before the end of the competition. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 04:53, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I agree with Christine, we would only count the reviews that are finished during the last round.  ΤheQ Editor   Talk? 14:07, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Prose size/character count?
Is there a particular tool that we will be using for character counts?-- 3family6 ( Talk to me   &#124;  See what I have done  ) 18:21, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
 * If you need the count for articles, you can use the DYK tool in the left-side navigation. If you need the word count for a review, you can cut-and-paste the eligible text into a Word document and let it tell you.  I got to the point when I could eyeball the word count, but that's what I do when I'm not sure by just looking at it.  I suggest that at first, you as a new judge should cut-and-paste to make sure that you're not in error.  If another judge disagrees, he or she should carefully check the word count and dispute the check.  That's what we're here for--to back each other up and make sure no one makes any errors. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 19:04, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Doesn't the DYK tool count both words and characters?-- Dom497 ( talk ) 22:55, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Ok. I just wasn't sure if the tool would work with some of the review templates, since lists are not included in the DYK character count.-- 3family6 ( Talk to me   &#124;  See what I have done  ) 03:29, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Misunderstood the question....DYK doesn't work on the review pages. My general rule is pasting into a word document and cut out a chunk (to make up for all the user signatures and templates).-- Dom497 ( talk ) 20:27, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

Submissions
So with the introduction of GAR's it kinda adds a bit more complexity to the submission process (unless we somehow get a bot). Right now he is what I am thinking; click here. The nomination process is the exact same. For GAR's, the participant pastes the diff url (like this; ) and the template is to make it easier to format the checkmark/points/signature from us. Thoughts?-- Dom497 ( talk ) 20:53, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Wait I sec...just realized how the reassessment pages work. Extremely disorganized but let me rework the GAR template.-- Dom497 ( talk ) 20:59, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Made some changes. The GAR template is now pretty much the same as the GAN minus a parameter.-- Dom497 ( talk ) 21:05, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Looks good to me. Thanks Dom. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 16:31, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

Newsletter, poll, and other stuff
Guys, a few things:

Today I've completed a newsletter; please go look at WikiProject Good articles/GA Cup/Newsletter/June 2015 and give feedback and corrections as needed. Once we've agreed that it's ready, could you please publish it, Dom? I think a good target would be June 1.

I also wrote up a poll, as per our discussion. It's here: WikiProject Good articles/GA Cup/2015 Poll. Please look at it, too. After we get enough feedback, we can move the sandbox drafts over to userspace.

We should request an article in the Signpost. I'm willing to lead that effort, since I've done it before. Once it's set up, I'll let you know so that you can contribute.

BTW, we now have 6 judges. Welcome back, ! Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 19:10, 21 May 2015 (UTC)


 * I'm kinda against the poll. If we do this, there is absolutely no way we can start on July 1. Say I sign up to participate on June 30. And I submit my opinions that day. Meanwhile another user signs up on June 2 and submits his opinions then. We're going to have to wait till July 1 before we can actually examine the feedback as not everyone are going to sign up and leave feedback at the same time. Also, everyone is going to have different opinions ("I think this should be worth 4 points", etc) and it's going to lead to half of the participants being happy about the rules and half pissed off because the rules are "unfair". We asked the participants from last year for their suggestions. If they didn't fill out the form, their loss. For those that did, it gave us a good/general idea of what worked and what didn't so we could make the right choices this time around. Why are we literally do it all over again (holding a second "feedback form")? As the judges/organizers of the competition, we need to set the rules and how the scoring system works. If someone doesn't agree with the rules/scoring, they don't have to participate; not everyone will be happy (that's just how life works). There needs to be a limit to how much "control" is given to the participants because there is a certain point where one can use their influence to manipulate the system into their favour. I know, this all sounds crazy, but as Christine knows, I always consider the worst case scenario; you have to with a competition like this. Especially if we plan on growing the GA Cup and hopefully one day having it as big as the WikiCup, we need to be careful with how much control is given.


 * So, IMO, we shouldn't do the poll to the participants. Rather, do it between the 6 of us. None of us are participating (obviously), so it's not like we're going to be trying to rig the system somehow (I hope not). We determine the rules/scoring based of what will benefit everyone and what is most fair. Again, this is all to prevent a worse case scenario that probably won't happen...but there's always the chance. :) -- Dom497 ( talk ) 00:21, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I agree, though perhaps not as strongly as you. If we do have a poll, there should be a cut-off date at least a week before the Cup starts.-- 3family6 ( Talk to me   &#124;  See what I have done  ) 02:16, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Dom, you make some good points, and they make a whole lotta sense. I agree that we've already given folks a good opportunity to chime in; for all extensive purposes, we've already polled everyone interested.  If we get complaints, we can state that.  I can ask to have the poll deleted if you like. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 17:20, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
 * It shouldn't be "if you like"; rather "if we like". I'm not the guy in charge here. There are six of us and we're the bosses of each other. I don't want to be calling the shots; I was just giving my opinion. :) -- Dom497 ( talk ) 02:11, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Also, just another thing I was thinking about. What if we scrap the sign-up page and just tell users that are interested that if they want to sign-up, just create their submissions page. No matter what a submissions page will be created so a sign-up page isn't really needed. Plus, the less work a participant needs to do (in terms of maintenance), the better.-- Dom497 ( talk ) 02:17, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Dude! Of course I mean the U.S. Southern "y'all". ;)
 * I'm opposed to scrapping the sign-up page. It doesn't require all that much work, anyway.  Plus, it provides us with a visualization of participation.  I mean, when I look at the sign-up page for the WikiCup, it impresses the heck out of me, so it establishes good will. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 04:33, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. :) -- Dom497 ( talk ) 13:51, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

2015 GA Cup
Hey everyone! Just wanted to thank you for joining me and Figurskatingfan for the second GA Cup! Also, I don't know if Figureskatingfan already told you, but because you are judges, you can not be an actual participant. Again, I don't really know what Figureskatingfan said so I may be repeating some things.


 * Depending on how fast we can get things together, we are aiming for either a June 1 or July 1 start. As of now, that will bring us to November/December.
 * If any of you know how to program a bot, please let us know...really...we need one!!!!
 * Figureskatingfan is working on drafts to update the scoring system and other pages so as soon as she's done with that someone will let you know.
 * The roles of judges won't change much compared to the previous GA Cup so I'm sure you all have a good idea of what to do. Last years guideline is here. I don't expect it to change much, but it will definitely be updated...eventually.
 * Opinions on if we should include Reassesments and Topics would be appreciated (we're on the fence about it). So let us know!

I'll post anything else that comes up. Any questions can be asked here or through email.-- Dom497 ( talk ) 22:33, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I naturally assumed that I could not also be a contestant. Plus, I'm not masochist - no way am I submitting myself to that grueling a work regime!-- 3family6 ( Talk to me   &#124;  See what I have done  ) 01:58, 15 May 2015 (UTC)


 * I wanted to join 's welcome to our new judges! Thanks for agreeing to come on board!  As Dom states above, I've been working on new versions of various pages having to do with the 2nd GA Cup.  This is what I've come up with thus far: WikiProject Good articles/GA Cup/sandbox, WikiProject Good articles/GA Cup/Scoring/sandbox, WikiProject Good articles/GA Cup/FAQ/draft.  Please look at these documents and provide feedback--any improvements and additions that need to be made.  If there is any updating of any other pages, as Dom has started to do, please do so.  When we're finished with the drafts and are ready to download the new versions, we can delete the sandboxes.


 * With 5 judges, the process of checking articles and the other judging duties should go much more smoothly this time. I'm looking forward to our 2nd GA Cup, and anticipate that it will be as successful (and hopefully, more) than the 1st inaugural one.  We made a real difference and we'll make one this time, I'm sure. (BTW, please make sure that you watchlist this page and the others, so that we don't need to ping you anymore.) Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 17:41, 16 May 2015 (UTC)


 * I made a few changes to the scoring page; feel free to revert if you don't agree.-- Dom497 ( talk ) 01:15, 17 May 2015 (UTC)


 * I feel like we may also need to bring back the Review length (sorry Figureskatingfan; I change my thoughts on the fly) or a third category just to "spice things up". Thoughts?-- Dom497 ( talk ) 01:21, 17 May 2015 (UTC)


 * I'm good with your changes. Dom, as we discussed, review length is pretty much worthless.  Last time, no one earned points in this category during the final round.  I haven't looked at the other rounds, but I suspect that very few points were earned in the category throughout the competition.  Remember, the purpose of the category was twofold: (1) to prevent drive-by reviews and (2) because we assumed that the longer the review, the more complicated it was, and we wanted to reward folks for it.  Point (1) is addressed this time by adding the rule that no review under 1000 characters will be allowed.  Point (2) has, IMO, proven to be a faulty assumption.  A larger word count doesn't necessarily mean that a review is more complicated.  Very few contestants were even able to reach the minimum word count, and I don't think that lowering the count as we've done in article length will make that much of a difference.  If you want a third category, perhaps we should think of something completely different.  Anyone have any ideas? Perhaps we can reward more reward points for reviewing a core article?


 * Pick one or two random categories every week. Nominations under those categories get a bonus 2 points. That's all I got! :) -- Dom497 ( talk ) 02:04, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
 * As I said before I'm definitely in favour of cutting back the length requirement on review comprehensiveness as virtually only a handful of people recieved points for it last time. I remember once I done a review that was initially below the limit of comprehensiveness and it later got extensive off-topic comments from other editors, which allowed me to get an extra point (which I think was wrong). We could still maintain the under-1000 characters limit for disqualifying reviews but really I think in the next cup we should be more lenient on review length. JAG  UAR   11:26, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Okay. I feel like review length should be either cut back or just not used as a third category. I received points for it because the article in question had many prose mistakes. Honestly, I don't know about the 1000 characters limit, as I never had a review under that limit. Also, as a side note, are we going to be doing Good Article reassessments? I don't have any experience with them....but maybe it might work out? Brandon (MrWooHoo) • Talk to Brandon!  14:12, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Yup, we're doing reassessments. Only reviewing though; no nominations. The 1000 character limit is to try and avoid the situation we had last year with the drive by reviews.-- Dom497 ( talk ) 14:28, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
 * It looks like consensus says that we're keeping review length. Anything above 20,000 characters is clearly unrealistic.  I wonder, then, if we should give, similar to what we're thinking about doing for article length points, 3 points for reviews between 10,000 and 14,999 words and 5 points for reviews over 15,000 words?  Opinions? Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 18:55, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Words or characters?-- Dom497 ( talk ) 19:09, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Oops, duh, sorry I meant characters of course. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 20:32, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Is the scoring system finalized? I think it's good and we can move it to the main page (I think it's a good idea to start generating attention now).-- Dom497 ( talk ) 20:12, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I think it's good to go. If you want to publish the newsletter now, you can do that too! Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 20:59, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

Editing conflicts in reviewing
Something occurred to me - isn't there a possibility that two judges could review the same submission at the same time? I thought that while reviewing a submission shouldn't take too long, it might take long enough that two judges might both check it.-- 3family6 ( Talk to me   &#124;  See what I have done  ) 01:11, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Last night, IIRC, edit conflicts happened very rarely--like twice, maybe. I admit that with five judges, it's more likely to happen this time, but I doubt it.  If it does, one judge can simply review another contestant's submissions.  That being said, I'm opposed to two judges checking each submission.  One judgment per submission is enough.  It's too complicated to figure out how to divide up the submissions.  The WikiCup doesn't even do it.  However, I think that we should continue what we did last time--double-check each other's judgments, especially the math.  We have multiple judges to prevent and catch errors, which worked really well last time. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 02:28, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Ok, thank you, that answers my question.-- 3family6 ( Talk to me   &#124;  See what I have done  ) 15:22, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

May the games begin
Please click here. Discuss what you want to do here. I don't see this resolving itself since we had the exact same problem last year....-- Dom497 ( talk ) 02:37, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Dom, I agree with your evaluation of Jonas' reviews. Yes, this is exactly what he did last time, and like last time, it is not something we should accept.  I believe that we should be strict right off about enforcing the rules about including comments in reviews, just as is clearly stated.  To that end, I intend to check the reviews tonight and will most likely not award any points for them.  Then I will go to Jonas' talk page and explain what I've done, link your review of his two reviews and warn him that if he continues to violate both the spirit and intent of the rules, we will disqualify him. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 03:30, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

Checking review size
For article size, we use the DYK tool. What about review size? I'm using the "Page size" tool, but it isn't getting all the words. Should I just use Microsoft Word? Brandon (MrWooHoo) • Talk to Brandon!  13:55, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, that's what most do. I know it's clunky and awkward, but it's the best we have currently.  I think having a tool that checks article size (without headings, etc.) would be very helpful, and not just for the GA Cup.  Hint, hint. ;) Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 17:10, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Dangit, I just realized Microsoft Word isn't on this computer...I'm using a MacBook Pro in China that was converted to Windows 7 (I don't know why) that doesn't have Microsoft Office. Should I just hand count reviews? Also, what words do I count in a review? For example: this review. Last question: What are characters? Does the word cheese have 6 characters? Brandon (MrWooHoo) • Talk to Brandon!  00:24, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
 * There are word to character conversion tools out there you can use; just google it and you should be good. It still involves cutting and pasting, though.  You count all words and punctuation marks.  And yes, cheese has 6 characters. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 03:18, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Don't macs come with Pages? (Not that it matters....there are a bunch of online character counters). I tried manipulating the DYK checker code to make it work on talk pages but I ended up with no success.-- Dom497 ( talk ) 22:39, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

Talk:USS Nebraska (BB-14)/GA1
I definitely need a 2nd opinion on this. What do y'all think? Should I fail it? Brandon (MrWooHoo) • Talk to Brandon!  15:04, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Brandon, I assume you mean if you should reward points for this review. Me and Dom have been talking to this reviewer off-wiki because he's concerned that his reviews, which tend to this short and boilerplate, are sufficient.  We've been telling him that they'd probably be fine, since we as judges have the right to reserve judgment about review lengths.  Plus, this reviewer is obviously not trying to game the system.  It's also obvious that he chose an article that came to GAN fully prepared, so it makes sense that there'd be less feedback for it.  Because of all these things, I advise you to go ahead and award him points. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 18:26, 7 July 2015 (UTC)


 * I'm pinging all of you just because I want to make sure everyone reads this.
 * Something that should have been clarified before was the 1000 character rule. Really this rule is simply supposed to mean, "try to get your review over 1000 characters or else the judges are going to look at it with suspicion and look at your review carefully." So yes, reviews can be under 1000 characters, so long as they are complete and there are no obvious errors remaining in the article.-- Dom497 ( talk ) 22:38, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Right. I did see some of the discussion on this, but I'm replying here to note that I've read it.-- 3family6 ( Talk to me   &#124;  See what I have done  ) 23:56, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Okay, thanks for clarifying this Dom and Christine. Cheers!Brandon (MrWooHoo) • Talk to Brandon!  23:57, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

My first submission review
I just completed my first submission review. I'm not sure that I did it correctly, however. Is article size awarded in the second point, or the third spot? I put it in the third spot. Also, was I correct in the amount of points I awarded for the article size? The review in question is Talk:Burger King Specialty Sandwiches/GA2, listed at WikiProject Good articles/GA Cup/Submissions/Zwerg Nase.-- 3family6 ( Talk to me   &#124;  See what I have done  ) 02:24, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
 * 3f6, no article size goes in the second point. Refer to this  as you check submissions.  Eventually, I assure you that you'll know it by heart, but until then use it each time you check a review.  Also make sure that you update the pools.  I'll go ahead and make the corrections. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 03:14, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks!-- 3family6 ( Talk to me   &#124;  See what I have done  ) 03:31, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

Is this review too short?
This review is substantially under 1,000 characters. The reviewer did find an issue, but their review is still very short.-- 3family6 ( Talk to me   &#124;  See what I have done  ) 21:20, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

Next Round
So how many people do you think we should allow to move onto round 2? Sign-ups are now closed; I was thinking 16 (since it would give us enough time to end in 3 months).-- Dom497 ( talk ) 02:04, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Eh?-- Dom497 ( talk ) 12:07, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Bump.-- Dom497 ( talk ) 12:43, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
 * That should work nicely - 16 divided into 4 pools, the top 4 (plus wild card) advancing. Is that math correct? -- 3family6 ( Talk to me   &#124;  See what I have done  ) 14:53, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Or would it be top 8 plus wild? That sounds more like it.-- 3family6 ( Talk to me   &#124;  See what I have done  ) 20:38, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Sounds good, the more people in the next round, the better. There's still the question of how many pools we want if there's an even number... JAG  UAR   15:25, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I like the top 8 plus wild. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 05:04, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
 * So 16 for this round, 9 for the next, and then the final 5?-- 3family6 ( Talk to me   &#124;  See what I have done  ) 19:22, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
 * 16,8,4?-- Dom497 ( talk ) 01:14, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I was including the wild card for those numbers.-- 3family6 ( Talk to me   &#124;  See what I have done  ) 21:44, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Oh, sorry!-- Dom497 ( talk ) 23:00, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

Round 1
Just a reminder that Round 1 ends in 5 days!-- Dom497 ( talk ) 12:44, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
 * By that token, I'm working on the next newsletter, and anticipate finishing it up on Thursday, after the round ends. Dom, I'll let you know here so you can publish it.  Also, could you set up Round 2 for us?  Thanks to you as always, and thanks for everyone who's taken up the slack.  I've suffered from low motivation regarding anything WP this month, so I appreciate it and promise to do better for future rounds. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 23:14, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
 * You have a reason for not be active on WP so don't worry about it! I'll take care of setting things up for the next round.-- Dom497 ( talk ) 23:27, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
 * But we still have submissions that need to be checked ASAP!-- Dom497 ( talk ) 23:28, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Dom. I'll do some checking today. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 16:01, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

Request
I'm checking submissions this morning, and found some errors with this contestant's submissions. Could someone take a look and make sure I'm seeing what I think I'm seeing? Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 16:55, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
 * What is the issue?-- Dom497 ( talk ) 21:26, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Dom, I just wanted someone to check it, just to make sure it's correct. It probably is, but I felt like I needed to ask. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 22:37, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
 * But what errors did you find?-- Dom497 ( talk ) 22:55, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Mostly, it's just to double check the addition. Please just do it for me! ;)  Dom, how cool is it that we've been checking submissions at the same time this afternoon.  I think that I'm quicker than you, though. ;) Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 23:27, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I see nothing wrong. Sorry about not being active recently, I had no access to internet/a computer in China. Back in the states and will begin reviewing submissions again. MrWooHoo (talk) 16:13, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks, hope you had a good time in China. Guys, I've just finished WikiProject Good articles/GA Cup/Newsletter/August 2015; please take a look for silly errors and such.  And Dom, when when we're good to go, can you publish it by end of the day tomorrow?  Thanks, guys! Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 20:19, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I too am sorry for the recent absence in reviewing submissions as I've been very busy outside Wikipedia, and I'm also in the middle of handling a FAC right now which draws my attention away. I promise to review more submissions now, but I must point out that whenever I sign my signature with the three " ", it doesn't pick up my signature so I have to write it out manually. Huh...  JAG  UAR   10:45, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

The newsletter looks good! Just a question though, when you said 132 reviews, did you include Jonas's reviews because when I added up all the reviews on the pools page, it equaled 120. Also, Jaguar, maybe you should ask the Teahouse about your problem. Cheers! MrWooHoo (talk) 19:59, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I did include Jonas' reviews. Not only does it make things look better, technically those articles were reviewed, even if they were put in GAR.  If you guys think that I should exclude them, I will, though. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 22:39, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

Warnings
Shouldn't JohnGormleyJG, Sturmvogel_66, and Zwerg Nase get warnings from breaking the rules? JohnGormley didn't allow the reviewer time to address issues, Sturmvogel's reviews are short, and one of Zwerg's reviews didn't allow the reviewer time to address the issues. MrWooHoo (talk) 16:23, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Also, I changed the main page to reflect our changes we discussed about Round 2. MrWooHoo (talk) 17:25, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't think it's necessary. We included the exact reasons the submissions weren't accepted on their individual submission pages, and were very clear about it.  I'm willing to give them the benefit of the doubt (aka WP:AGF), and assume that they were just oversights and not attempts to game the system, since their other submissions were acceptable. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 18:13, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

,, , Can someone update the Round 2 pools page or even the rest of the statistics? I can probably do the statistics but I'm not sure how to randomly put users in pools, etc. MrWooHoo (talk) 19:55, 31 July 2015 (UTC)


 * I'm working on the pools. Had a situation at work yesterday and today (of course....).-- Dom497 ( talk ) 21:29, 31 July 2015 (UTC)


 * I also need that newsletter!-- Dom497 ( talk ) 21:30, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
 * , see the URL above, in the previous section. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 22:39, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

Proposal for round 2
Guys, since User:Anarchyte has withdrawn so close to the start of the new round, I was wondering if we could replace him with the next higher scorer, which would be User:Gug01, with 32 points. What do you think of that idea? Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 17:10, 1 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Sound's good. I'll ask him now.-- Dom497 ( talk ) 20:18, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

How to move forward?
Hello all! I got this message because I removed Tom's review because it was around 700 characters. Should I reply to Tom by saying the review was under my discretion whether to check it/remove it, or should I just check the review and award him points? Cheers! MrWooHoo (talk) 14:05, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I think you handled it well. You acknowledged it and promised action, since we no longer remove submissions solely based upon review length.  It is up to the discretion of the judges, and if 700 characters is adequate, we can accept it and award points. It's also okay to go back and change our decision if we think it's appropriate. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 17:19, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks Christine! MrWooHoo (talk) 02:33, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

Round 3
As we move into Round 3, I'd like to thank some of you other judges for taking up the slack in checking submissions for Round 2. This has been a rough summer for me, so I appreciate you guys stepping up. That being said, I intend on getting a newsletter written up before tomorrow night, so that Dom can publish it on Sunday. Speaking of, Dom, would you mind getting the new rounds set? I'll let you know when the newsletter is ready. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 23:09, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
 * As promised, I've completed the newsletter for Round 3: WikiProject Good articles/GA Cup/Newsletter/September 2015. Please look it over for errors or anything that's missing.  Thanks! Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 23:13, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
 * , I have created the Round 3 page and I used Random.org to determine pools. Please check for any issues. MrWooHoo (talk) 00:06, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks so much. There are some other housekeeping things to do; unless one of you beats me to it, I hope to deal with them tomorrow. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 02:57, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

And again for round 3
We again have a withdrawal close to the beginning of a round, so I again propose that we replace him with the next highest scorer, who would be User:J Milburn, who wasn't all that far behind to qualify anyway. What do you guys think?

Also, Dom497, the newsletter still needs to be published. Thanks. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 22:55, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
 * No objection from me, but no hard feelings if it's not something you're able to do. Josh Milburn (talk) 21:39, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Okay, I went ahead and added J Milburn. If any of you have objections, go ahead and undo my edit. Also, since Dom has dropped out as a judge, someone else needs to request for mass message sending. MrWooHoo (talk) 16:55, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I could do it, but I don't have the "mass-message sender right" yet... JAG  UAR   23:52, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I've requested it along with you, so one of us can publish the newsletter, which should be good. JAG  UAR   00:00, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

Dropping out
Hey everyone,

I am moving out to university tomorrow so I will be dropping out as a judge.-- Dom497 ( talk ) 13:06, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Ok, good luck! You will be missed!-- 3family6 ( Talk to me   &#124;  See what I have done  ) 16:40, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Goodbye Dom! Good luck with university! Thanks for all you've done! MrWooHoo (talk) 16:53, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Dom, I'm sad that you're leaving us but proud, like I'm sure your parents are, that you're beginning your secondary education. I know that you'll do well and make a huge impact there like you've made in Wikipedia.  I thank you for your help in making the GA Cup a reality and for its success. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 22:37, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

Wugapodes review from September 2014?!?!
Wugapodes is reviewing College football national championships in NCAA Division I FBS and the nomination date is apparently from September 2014, however the article was actually nominated in late July, early August. When the judges check the review, will we just give the review 10 points, as the September nomination is false as this is a new GA nomination (the 2nd one). Cheers! MrWooHoo (talk) 02:12, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, since this a new review, with a new review page.-- 3family6 ( Talk to me   &#124;  See what I have done  ) 14:38, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Okay, thanks for the confirmation. MrWooHoo (talk) 14:55, 3 August 2015 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry I didn't see this earlier. The nomination date of September 2014 was indeed correct, and I believe that Wugapodes, acting in good faith, deserves the full 20 points. Since I'm the one who put this nomination back into the reviewing pool for him to take when its prior reviewer had abandoned it, let me explain what happened. (I hope you don't mind that I've pulled this section back from the archive.)


 * Dolenath nominated the article on September 30, 2014, its only GAN made to date. A review was started five and a half months later on March 16, 2015, by Dirtlawyer1. It proceded in fits and starts, but there was no further progress by Dirtlawyer1 after Dolenath's reply of May 28. After a ping from Dom497 in late June, and a number of reminders from me and others in July (and unfulfilled promises by him that he was "on it"), when Dirtlawyer1 missed a final deadline I ultimately had to give him, I put the nomination back into the reviewing pool on July 31—this was not a renomination—four and a half months after the review had been opened. I picked the end-of-July date knowing full well that it wouldn't take long for such an old nomination to be taken up by another reviewer with the GA Cup starting a new round the next day, and Wugapodes proved me right.


 * I realize that the extra ten points was not needed for Wugapodes to advance to the next round, but I felt it was important to set the record straight. There have been several nominations that were put back into the reviewing pool after being abandoned by their reviewers—in such cases, we always retain the nomination's seniority by retaining the original nomination date, since it isn't the nominator's fault that the reviewer has failed to follow through—though most of the others had their review pages deleted because no work at all had been done, as opposed to this case, where what work had been done ceased over two months before action was taken.


 * Thank you for your consideration. If you have any questions, I'll be happy to answer them. BlueMoonset (talk) 15:25, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

Finals
Guys, looks like everything is ready for our Finals. There has already been two errors found and corrected. If you find any other errors or if another contestant brings it to our attention, please correct it. My only excuse is inexperience; Dom has handled housekeeping in the past and I was trying to figure it all out. The only thing left is the newsletter, which I'll write up tomorrow. I let you know when it's finished so that one of you can publish it. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 03:14, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Alrighty, it's finished. See here: WikiProject Good articles/GA Cup/Newsletter/October 2015. Someone, please publish. ;) Thanks! Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 22:48, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
 * and : Did either or both of you receive mass sending privileges? I haven't, so I can't publish.-- 3family6 ( Talk to me   &#124;  See what I have done  ) 01:41, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Doing now! MrWooHoo (talk) 02:08, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Beat me too it! Unfortunately it was 2am in my time, so I didn't stand much of a chance... JAG  UAR   11:48, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

Finals ending soon
Hello everyone! I really want to apologize for my lack of checking reviews/being active for the GA Cup in general. From now til the end, I will try and work harder checking and being more active overall. With the Finals ending soon, we will need to handout barnstars. Should we use last year's barnstars? MrWooHoo (talk) 01:49, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Now that the competition's over, I'd like to add my thanks to MrWooHoo's. I too haven't been around that much to check submissions.  Things have been crazy IRL, with family obligations and a new job, so it was comforting to know that there were other judges I could trust to keep things going.  (I haven't even really edited for a long time!  I'm trying to figure out how to manage editing with the different kind of busy I am now, something I've been able to successfully accomplish each time I've had a job or lifestyle change.)


 * Anyway, I think that using last year's barnstars are fine. I'd ask that someone else take care of it, since I'm working on winding things down tonight and this weekend.  I'm willing to write the final newsletter, which I can finish by the end of the weekend.  One suggestion: I'd like to set up a separate page for feedback.  Last time, we conducted a poll, which I went along with because Dom set it up, but it didn't encourage discussion and only the judges were able to see folks' feedback.  What do you guys think?  Also, I'd like to create an archive of past competitions, like the Wikicup.  I think it's needed because it'll make it easier to set up future competitions.  Now that we've had two successful GA Cups, I think that we're here to stay, and it'll be nice to have an archive of our growth and development.  Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 05:03, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I could try and help with some of this. I'm going to be unavailable the rest of today through tomorrow, though. Monday is looking good for me.-- 3family6 ( Talk to me   &#124;  See what I have done  ) 17:37, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Newsletter all ready. Publish please! ;) Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 18:21, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks, published! JAG  UAR   21:17, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Ah, beat me to it! I agree with Christine mostly, I like the separate page for feedback. Archiving would also be great as well. I'll try and send out as many barnstars as possible and will start soon. Also, Christine, I was busy at one point for me too so I'd like to thank all of y'all for keeping up with the entries while school was at its highest point. MrWooHoo (talk) 22:50, 1 November 2015 (UTC)