The final is upon us! We are down to our final 8. A massive 573 was our lowest qualifying score; this is higher than the 150 points needed last year and the 430 needed in 2010. Even in 2009, when points were acquired for mainspace edit count in addition to audited content, 417 points secured a place. That leaves this year's WikiCup, by one measure at least, our most competitive ever. Our finalists, ordered by round 4 score, are:
However, we must also say goodbye to the eight who did not make the final, having fallen at the last hurdle: GreatOrangePumpkin (submissions), Ealdgyth (submissions), Calvin999 (submissions), Piotrus (submissions), Toa Nidhiki05 (submissions), 12george1 (submissions), The Bushranger (submissions) and 1111tomica (submissions). We hope to see you all next year.
On the subject of next year, a discussion has been opened here. Come and have your say about the competition, and how you'd like it to run in the future. This brainstorming will go on for some time before more focused discussions/polls are opened. As ever, if you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article candidates, a featured process, or anywhere else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews. Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn (talk • email) and The ed17 (talk • email) 00:22, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Back from Vacation, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Craig Robinson (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 14:44, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
I'll review your new Office GA nomination. That being said, could you perhaps leave comments at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Awake (TV series)/archive2. Thanks. Cheers, TBrandley 21:14, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
TBrandley 22:08, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
TBrandley 00:18, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
Are you at all planning on making Season 3 a GT? If so, would you like some help updating the older season GAs? I know it can be a pain. Also, I updated the season templates and added pictures. What do you think? Unrelated, are you ready for the new season of Fringe? I think it's pretty cool it got renewed!--Gen. Quon (Talk) 04:45, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Phyllis's Wedding, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Steve Miller (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:15, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
PanydThe muffin is not subtle 16:02, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
Could you voice your opinion on Talk:Maximilian de Beauharnais, 3rd Duke of Leuchtenberg?--The Emperor's New Spy (talk) 22:02, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
Hello!
Write the article: Raphael Rainer of Thurn and Taxis? --Adam123456 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.173.27.213 (talk) 16:43, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
TBrandley 04:19, 22 September 2012 (UTC)
TBrandley 05:10, 22 September 2012 (UTC)
TBrandley 05:22, 22 September 2012 (UTC)
Hello, you are receiving this message because you are currently a participant of WikiProject Good articles. Since the creation of the WikiProject, over 200 user's have joined to help review good article nominations and contribute to other sections of the WikiProject. Over the years, several of these users have stopped reviewing articles and/or have become inactive with the project but are still listed as participates. In order to improve communications with other participants and get newsletters sent out faster (newsletters will begin to be sent out monthly starting in October) all participants that are no longer active with the WikiProject will be removed from the participants list.
If you are still interested in being a participant for this WikiProject, please sign your user name here and please help review some articles so we can reduce the size of the backlog. If you are no longer interested, you do not need to sign your name anywhere and your name will be removed from the participants list after the deadline. Remember that even if you are not interested at this time, you can always re-add your name to the list whenever you want. The deadline to sign your name on the page above will be November 1, 2012. Thank-you. 13:33, 22 September 2012 (UTC)
Sorry for having to send out a second message but a user has brought to my attention that a point mentioned in the first message should be clarified. If user's don't sign on this page, they will be moved to an "Inactive Participants" list rather then be being removed from the entire WikiProject. Sorry for any confusion.--Dom497 (talk)15:23, 22 September 2012 (UTC)
— Tomica (talk) 19:01, 22 September 2012 (UTC)
— Tomica (talk) 09:56, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:03, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
And thought of you. Haven't given it much of a read as I've still yet to pick up season two (soon, soon, I promise) but I figured you might get some use out of it. GRAPPLE X 20:52, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
Hi, I have outlined a proposal for a potential project that you might be interested in at User:Betty Logan/BRD enforcer. The essence of it is a peer review system in relation to challenged unilateral edits. If you are not interested then no worries, I'm just seeing if there is any interest/suggestions at this stage before going to the bother of formalizing a proprosal. Betty Logan (talk) 00:56, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
About a year ago you reviewed Stew-roids for GA but at that time it failed. I have fixed your issues with it and improved the article over all and I have also nominated it one more. So please review since most of the corrections were made by your criteria. --Pedro J. the rookie 01:01, 29 September 2012 (UTC)
The article Through a Glass Darkly (Koen novel) you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Through a Glass Darkly (Koen novel) for comments about the article. Well done! Kürbis (✔) 09:27, 29 September 2012 (UTC)
We're over half way through the final, and so it is less than a month until we know for certain our 2012 WikiCup champion. Grapple X (submissions) currently leads, followed by Sasata (submissions), Cwmhiraeth (submissions) and Casliber (submissions). However, we have no one resembling a breakaway leader, and so the competition is a long way from over. Next month's newsletter will feature a list of our winners (who are not necessarily only the finalists) and keep your eyes open for an article on the WikiCup in a future edition of The Signpost. The leaders are already on a par with last year's winners, but a long way from the huge scores seen in 2010. That said, a repeat of the competition from 2010 seems unlikely.
It is good to see that three-quarters of our finalists have already scored bonus points this round. This shows that, contrary to criticism that the WikiCup has received in the past, the competition does not merely incentivise the writing of trivial articles; instead, our top competitors are still spending their time contributing to high-importance articles, and bringing them to a high standard. This does a great service to the encyclopedia and its readers. Thank you, and good work!
The planning for next year's WikiCup is ongoing. Some straw polls have been opened concerning the scoring, and you can now sign up for next year's competition. As ever, if you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article candidates, a featured process, or anywhere else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews. Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn (talk • email) and The ed17 (talk • email) J Milburn (talk) 20:02, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
September-December 2008, 2009, 2010, January-April 2011 | November 2012
Each month, 5 random good articles will be choose to be featured here as the good articles of the month.
Having references included in articles is one of the most important aspects to a good article, let alone Wikipedia! Without them, no one would ever know what is true and what is false and Wikipedia probably wouldn't be where it is today. So this month, I will talk about how to check for references, how reliable they are, and so on and so forth.
The first thing to do when reviewing an nominee is to do a quick scan of the article. One of the things to look for is if the article has references! If you don't see a list at the bottom of the article page, quick-fail it.[2] For newcomers, quick-failing is failing an article when you spot a problem before actually conducting a full review. If you do find a list of references (and in most cases you will) make sure to look through each and every one. If you want to save some time, use this tool as it will tell you if there are any problematic references in the article you are reviewing.
Next, check the reliability and type of the references/sources. In terms of the type of reference, check to see how many primary and/or secondary sources are included. Primary sources are the ones published by the subject of the article. For example, if the subject of the article has to do with the iPhone 4s and the source is published by Apple, it is considered a primary source. Secondary sources are those not published by the subject of the article (or in close relation to it). Newspapers are examples of secondary sources and considered one of the better types to include in the article (not saying primary sources are bad). If you find that most/all of the references are primary sources, notify the nominator about this issue(s) and place the article on hold once you have completed the review. Only in the event that a secondary source can't be found as a replacement, then the primary source can remain. If there is a good mix of primary and secondary sources, that is perfect and no references need to be changed.
Now, reliability. Forums are generally not considered reliable and some blog's may not be reliable either. Newspapers, most sources published by the subject, some blogs, etc. are considered reliable. If you don't know wether the source is reliable, ask for a second opinion. For more info about how to identify wether a reference is reliable or not, visit this article.
Finally, one of the more basic things to look for is that every statement in the article has at least one reference! The only case that a statement doesn't need a reference is when it is common sense that the statement is defiantly true and/or in the case where the statement can't be challenged, as per what Wikipedia says, "All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be attributed to a reliable published source using an inline citation."
After a long 18 month hiatus, the third volume of the WikiProject Good Articles newsletter is here! Please leave any comments or feedback regarding this issue of the newsletter here or on the editors talk page.
Also, Happy Halloween...in advance!!!
PLEASE READ: If you do not wish to receive future WikiProject Good Articles newsletter's on your talk page, please remove your self from this list. If you are viewing this newsletter from the WikiProject Good Articles page or on someone else's talk page and want to receive future newsletters on your talk page, please add your name to the list linked above.
Improving Wikipedia one article at a time since 2005!
→ Please direct all enquiries regarding this newsletter to the WikiProject talk page.→ Newsletter delivered by ENewsBot (info) · 05:45, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
The article Through a Glass Darkly (Koen novel) you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Through a Glass Darkly (Koen novel) for comments about the article. Well done! Kürbis (✔) 13:56, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Bound (Fringe), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Spinal tap (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 14:17, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
Welcome aboard the project! Thank you for joining. AutomaticStrikeout 19:48, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
As a WikiWoman, we'd love to have you involved! You can do this by:
We can't wait to have you involved, and feel free to drop by our meta page (under construction) to see how else you can get involved! Can't wait to have you involved! SarahStierch (talk) 04:54, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
I've been editing the article. Since most of your previous concerns have been addressed and I 'm still working on the editing could you add some more specific concerns. Note: I won't. Have Internet access till this Sunday. --Pedro J. the rookie 03:27, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
TBrandley 18:17, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for the review! Just noticed that it had been done. I'll get back in full before the 28th October. I agree that Penelope Wilton is a really good actress. :-) Eshlare (talk) 12:44, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited True North (Once Upon a Time), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Buffy the Vampire Slayer (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 01:34, 28 October 2012 (UTC)
