Wikipedia talk:WikiCup#Cooperation with WP:NARA

As we approach the beginning of the wikicup 2025 I wish to bring attention to a few useful tools for the contest.

• Wikipedia:Good article review circles You get a review and review another in exchange, a very simple way to get atleast 40 points.
• Wikipedia:Former featured and good topics Picking up a topic and restoring it shouldn't take too long depending on what you pick.
• Wikipedia:Reward board Provides other incentives to produce quality content

While most May find this redundant I hope atleast one person benefits from any of these. Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 11:22, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

:Thanks for posting these links. I've pinned this section for the duration of the 2025 WikiCup. Epicgenius (talk) 20:25, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

{{align|left|{{Pin message|20:25, 5 November 2025 (UTC)}}}}{{User:ClueBot III/DoNotArchiveUntil|1739564741}}

Just curious. —Mint Keyphase (Did I mess up? What have I done?) 04:44, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

:Sadly not. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 07:47, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

:: There should be. I'd pay good money for a WikiCup trophy autographed by Jimbo. BeanieFan11 (talk) 00:39, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

:::I mean, if someone's willing to pay... Hey WMF you got any money to spare? – Epicgenius (talk) 01:37, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

::::Trophies aren't exactly expensive. Custom trophies on Amazon start around $20, with the fancier stuff coming in at the $75-150 range. The real challenge would be shipping to a winner who may not wish to give away their address. It could be a cute thing to at least offer a winner, though. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 10:15, 6 June 2025 (UTC)

:::::In theory yeah, it would be nice to have. If people want an actual trophy, maybe someone might want to offer something at the Wikipedia:Reward board. – Epicgenius (talk) 14:02, 6 June 2025 (UTC)

::::::If someday a miracle happens and I was to win, I might just get [https://www.amazon.co.uk/dp/B0DYMGVKNS/ one of these] for myself *shrug* Kingsif (talk) 00:30, 14 June 2025 (UTC)

:Someone look into it and give me a quote. Panini! • 🥪 03:36, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

::So where did that photo come from? —Mint Keyphase (Did I mess up? What have I done?) 09:39, 6 June 2025 (UTC)

::At least $100,000 and no less. {{=D}} – Epicgenius (talk) 13:59, 6 June 2025 (UTC)

The Multiplier Bot broke on me again, Væb's GA should have a 1.8x but didn't get any. History6042😊 (Contact me) 12:30, 13 June 2025 (UTC)

:It should have a 1.0x multiplier as the page had no interwikis on 31 December. —Kusma (talk) 12:36, 13 June 2025 (UTC)

::Oh sorry, I thought it was based on what it was currently. History6042😊 (Contact me) 19:47, 13 June 2025 (UTC)

This year, we seem to have produced fewer GAN reviews than usual, see Wikipedia talk:Good article nominations#WikiCup and the context of that section. Perhaps we do need to revisit the scoring rules, for example to encourage reviewing of long articles or old nominations by added points. The Cup should definitely not be a drain on the already limited resources over at WP:GAN; as good citizens we should help with the backlog, not cause it. —Kusma (talk) 10:38, 21 June 2025 (UTC)

:Hmm, looking at those stats, it is still a positive ratio of reviews to GAs. Also, historically, the last couple of rounds has been where a lot of GA reviews come in. If we were running a deficit, I'd be more worried. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 10:52, 21 June 2025 (UTC)

::I'm not so sure: this year we have a completely different overall structure, so the outcome could be quite different. (Also, having a positive ratio means nothing: 1 review / 1000 GAs is a positive ratio of 0.001; do you want the ratio to be greater than 1?) —Kusma (talk) 10:58, 21 June 2025 (UTC)

:::Yes, I agree with that. We won't know a great deal until the end of the event. The new structure does make us not have as much of a history to look back on for items like this.

:::I did mean positive in the reviews>GAs. As in a net positive of the wikicup.

:::I dont think its wise to change scoring during the event but we should definately keep an eye on this. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 11:15, 21 June 2025 (UTC)

::::Fully agreed on not changing the scoring mid-session. We still have no idea at all how the "highest score in category" bonus points will play out. —Kusma (talk) 11:20, 21 June 2025 (UTC)

::@Lee Vilenski, have a look at the new numbers @Kusma put up since this original post. My reply here: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Good_article_nominations#c-Asilvering-20250626171600-Kusma-20250621063300]. I agree that changing scoring mid-contest is unfair to participants but it really looks like the values need to be changed if the Cup continues this system in the future. -- asilvering (talk) 17:18, 26 June 2025 (UTC)

:Of more relevance is the disinclination of the judges to enforce the rules. Wikipedia:WikiCup/Scoring is clear that {{green|"Only high-quality [FAC or FLC] reviews will be accepted"}}; but just this round {{u|History6042}} has accumulated 85 points through FLC reviews with a total of 106 short bullet points (6.2 per review on average)(you can check for yourself whether they are in any way "high-quality"). If you are looking for Cup points, why would you ever do a five-point GA review that will likely take the same amount of time as all of those FLC reviews together? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 11:02, 21 June 2025 (UTC)

::I had (sadly) not done as much reviewing as I had thought that I would have time to do recently. My bar is a bit higher than most for what deserves points, and I certainly think we need in depth reviews everywhere. Ill be on the lookout for unsuitable reviews as it isnt what the WikiCup is for, and does make a bit of a mockery of the points system. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 11:28, 21 June 2025 (UTC)

:::Same for me - I haven't had as much time recently to look at reviews as I'd anticipated, and will probably have even less time to do so during the next year. But I'll also be looking out for low-quality reviews, since 6 bullet points really does not seem like much, either. Gog the Mild previously raised this issue on my talk page, as well, and following that conversation I added some examples of high-quality reviews to WP:WC/SCO#Featured article candidate reviews & Featured list candidate reviews. – Epicgenius (talk) 17:50, 21 June 2025 (UTC)

::It has been brought up before that my reviews may not be high enough quality, for example before I knew about the rule, I tried claiming an FLC review that was just “Add two commas”. I was told that the reviews were to be a minimum of five, my average is now over six. And that they should review as much of the page as possible. From what I have been told my reviews that I submit all seem high quality enough. The judges also do remove my unsubstantial reviews, if it turns out that they didn’t meet the criteria even though I thought they did. History6042😊 (Contact me) 12:57, 21 June 2025 (UTC)

:::@History6042, just so you know, the rules no longer require a set number of bullet points, since we've received complaints that reviews with five or six points could be gaming the system. Please see the examples at WP:WC/SCO#Featured article candidate reviews & Featured list candidate reviews for what we're looking for - I think I mentioned this at least once before, but we want substantive, in-depth reviews, not a set number of bullet points. – Epicgenius (talk) 18:07, 21 June 2025 (UTC)

::::Hi, @Epicgenius, I was unaware of this change and though it was just a 5-6 limit, I can stop putting in reviews that I do not think meet the new criteria, thank you for making me aware of this. Also just to gauge how much I should be doing, would you say my new review at Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of governors of Akwa Ibom State/archive1 is eligible for points. History6042😊 (Contact me) 18:15, 21 June 2025 (UTC)

:::::Just to clarify, when we give out points for the cup, we really are not looking for someone to have done "just enough". We really are looking for indepth reviews of the articles. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 19:32, 21 June 2025 (UTC)

::::::Yeah, if it were me, this would be borderline. However, this is much better than this other review for example, which I wouldn't have approved if I were to look at it today. – Epicgenius (talk) 20:04, 21 June 2025 (UTC)

:::{{green|"I was told that the reviews were to be a minimum of five, my average is now over six."}} I think that sums it up mate. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 19:01, 21 June 2025 (UTC)

::::I have already had my say, twice, referencing FAC reviews but to the same point and about the same reviewer. Gog the Mild (talk) 11:48, 26 June 2025 (UTC)

• A little while ago, discussing this with Epic, I suggested "Personally, as a fairly busy reviewer, 3 points for PRRs and FLCRs, 5 for FACRs and 6 for GANRs feels about right." Discussion? Gog the Mild (talk) 17:52, 26 June 2025 (UTC)
• :@Gog the Mild I think that's too low for GANRs relative to the points for a GA. Honestly, I'd put it at 10 (relative to the 35 for a GA), if I were setting the numbers. If Cup participants aren't typically reviewing more articles than they're GAing, I think the points system is out of balance. -- asilvering (talk) 18:13, 26 June 2025 (UTC)

:::As a FAC coordinator, I am disinclined to argue with anything which encourages more (thoughtful and thorough) reviews. Like GAN, FAC barely manages to "break even" re the review:nom ratio. I wonder what the coordinators think of the scoring system being overtly tweaked to change contestant behaviour? Gog the Mild (talk) 18:33, 26 June 2025 (UTC)

::I don't have personal experience with FLs. I do think GAN reviews should be worth up to twice as much as peer reviews, because you (a) have to review everything and (b) have to actually check whether fixes have been made before you can claim any points. The other issue is that not all reviews are equal (article length is a major factor). —Kusma (talk) 19:00, 26 June 2025 (UTC)

Greetings {{u|Epicgenius}} and to your fellow coordinators. Thank you for once again keeping the Wiki Cup show on the road; I know that it is a lot of work, but it is appreciated. I anticipate being away from the internet for much of 27-29 June. (I shall be up a hill in a tent.) It is possible that my current FAC will be promoted on the 27th or 28th. I would be grateful if one of you could keep an eye on it, and if it were to be promoted update my submissions log accordingly before I time out at close of business on the 29th. Or maybe a friendly talk page stalker could help out. Many thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:05, 26 June 2025 (UTC)

:@Gog the Mild, no problem, and enjoy your trip. Since we're so close to the end of the round, anyway, you may submit that article for points during round 4 if your current FAC is approved during that time. However, I'll keep an eye on it. Also pinging @Lee Vilenski and @Guerillero to give them a heads-up. – Epicgenius (talk) 14:10, 26 June 2025 (UTC)