Be careful Maralia that your new format damaged the second scoring table. Would you be able to fix this? -- Eurocopter ( talk) 16:48, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
I have suggested here that we allow for collaboration on content. Eurocopter agreed but felt that this "should only be allowed for ACR/FAC". I'm not sure why we would want to limit this, aside from the minor logistical issue of splitting odd numbers. I do agree with the premise that "the scoring procedure would be based on agreement between the collaborating editors (in which they will decide in percentage the split of the points)." Maralia ( talk) 18:01, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
Do we need both {{ WPMILHIST World War I task force contest}} and {{ WPMILHIST World War I task force contest footer}}? I'm not sure whether a header or footer navigation template would work best, but I don't see any real benefit in having two different ones.
It would be nice, incidentally, if we could add {{ WPMILHIST Navigation}} to its usual top-right spot on all the contest pages. This works out easily enough if we go with the footer version of the contest-specific navigation box; but I can probably put together a version of the header box that aligns nicely with the standard navbox if we want to use that option instead. Kirill [talk] [pf] 02:28, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
I think the poppy themed awards Roger suggested at WT:MHCOORD would be there best course of action in regards to awards. First place gets a modified Golden Wiki that has a poppy, and this could be also done for second and third (Silver and Bronze Wikis with poppies). A poppy themed service award could also be presented to all entrants. This theme, I believe, is rather apt as a generic symbol of the First World War, and Remberance Day on which this is to start. The mention of the WikiChevrons with Oak Leaves should be removed, though, due to the issues outlined at the Coords talkpage. Cheers, Abraham, B.S. ( talk) 00:35, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
Further to Bryce's request, the initial service award adaptations are presented for your approval:
The poppy may need lightening up (done), and there may be other ideas for improvements. What do you think?
EyeSerene
talk 12:25, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
Thanks! -- Eurocopter ( talk) 12:36, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
OK, first draft of trophies:
I had to apply some shadow and relighting effects to make the poppy look as though it was part of the image and not just pasted on, which washed out the bronze wiki slightly making it almost indistinguishable from the gold, so I recoloured it as well. Hopefully the end result isn't too dark - any changes needed though, just let me know :) EyeSerene talk 19:34, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
I would love to do some serious contributing to Wikipedia as opposed to my usual lurking on talk pages. However, I would perhaps have an unfair advantage considering the vast number of projects I have in my userspace. Would this be an issue? -- Simon Harley ( talk | library | book reviews) 19:08, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
This contest is going to rely on a lot of work by reviewers in assessing articles both before and after an editor has worked on them, I think maybe the contest should in some way recognise this reliance on reviews by awarding points for the number of reviews especially for C,B,A reviews which are reliant on the project. Gnan garra 23:50, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
I see that getting an article from start to B-class is only worth 3 points, but that getting a B to GA is worth 14. But this has real potential to further back up the GA, A and FA reviews, IMO. Heck, I could dump a couple of dozen WWI articles into the GAR queue the minute the contest began. Normally I only run one or two GARs at a time, which isn't going to keep the backlog from expanding when all these articles are dumped into the queue. Perhaps we can motivate people by awarding a point for a GAR, 2 points for a substantial contribution to a ACR and, similarly, 3 points for a FAR. This could perhaps be judged by the length of comments as given by diffs. And contestants would be limited to only a single nominee at FAR. And maybe no points should be awarded for a GAR if the nominating editor called for a second opinion. This would protect both parties from charges of unreasonableness, bias, etc. Thoughts, comments?-- Sturmvogel 66 ( talk) 00:37, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
I just added a section into the scoring table then, giving a generic 2 points for a substantial review of a GAN, ACR or FAC. I'll go and add another appropiate section to each of the submissions pages, but feel free to tweak/correct as necessary! Cheers, Abraham, B.S. ( talk) 00:59, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
Could someone explain the basics of the scoring system here? Do participants get points for doing reviews or only for getting something through a review? And if an article actually falls within the WWI taskforce but hasn't specifically been tagged for the taskforce, how does that get ironed out? Maybe I'll just wimp out and restore images, although there is a GA that I'd been meaning to take to FAC... Durova 360 07:05, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
Hoping that more editors will join the contest, I'll postpone the start of it by 20 hours (till 20:00, 11th November). Apologise and hope there are no major inconveniences! -- Eurocopter ( talk) 13:56, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
I have heard about a gassed American military unit in France from which only 2 of approximately 100 soldiers survived. I know nothing else except that one of the soldiers was from Brooklyn, NY. I am asking if any WWI experts might know something about this event. 489thCorsica ( talk) 18:12, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
Hi, there has been some concern about overloading the review system. Although I won't be entering, I'd like to make a special effort to get involved in review for the contest. The WPMILHIST Copy-editing alerts template is fantastic - can we please get a "Contest" section (possibly appropriately named) where I can find relevant article reviews? Also, since pictures are eligible as entries, can we please get notification of those - actually could we get notification for all Milhist related FPCs? I realise these are not trivial coding / administrative tasks, but they would be much appreciated. Dhatfield ( talk) 19:59, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
Where is FA? :-) — Ed (talk • contribs) 00:42, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
In order to get more participants on the way, signups will be open until 1 December! I believe that nobody disagrees with this. -- Eurocopter ( talk) 20:02, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
The article has been rated as 'Start' class, but I do not see a date or review, other than the five points addressed in the talk page here. Thanks for the help! Monsieurdl mon talk 22:35, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
The various submissions pages say that DYK and ITN submissions are worth 5 points. However, on the main contest page, it says these items are worth 10 points. Which of these are correct? Thanks! Dana boomer ( talk) 22:05, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
I started looking at List of Asian American Medal of Honor recipients as a possible FLC for this contest, as it is currently tagged as under the WWI task force. However, there are no WWI soldiers present in this list. Is there another reason that this list was included under the task force, or was it just mistakenly tagged? Thanks! Dana boomer ( talk) 22:37, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/World War I task force/Contest/FAQ needs attention, up to and including a spell check... -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 03:47, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
Per discussions above, an idea has come out that we should reduce the number of points awarded for submitting a DYK/ITN and award points for reviewing Peer reviews. While I would completely agree with the second issue, being just an omission that it doesn't currently exists in the GAN/ACR/FA review scoring label, I won't disagree nor agree with the reduction of points awarded for DYKs. Although several editors expressed above decent arguments sustaining this issue, I must say that we should give a strong encouragement for users to write DYKs, keeping in mind that DYK is almost the single chance of a low-importance wiki article to get out from its obscurity (a good DYK hook might get even 200.000 views per day for its article).
As these should be the last scoring changes to be made to this contest, I invite all participants to express their recomandations, complaints and opinions now. We should also decide whether we apply or not the first change mentioned above. Cheers, -- Eurocopter ( talk) 09:00, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
I noticed that in the article Battle of Polygon Wood that it has not been reviewed by MILHIST, and yet 7 points have been given out for an improvement to B-class here. How is that so? Is there a separate place for B-class reviews that I have missed? Monsieurdl mon talk 04:28, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
Seeking suggestions: a couple of weeks ago I put up a GA (within WWI scope) for MILHIST peer review. Would like to get it to A class and FA, but time is getting stretched thin. I can probably churn out one featured picture a week for this contest, but don't generate featured articles at anything approaching that rate. Things look good for finishing the FA drive before the task force contest ends, just not right away. Mostly because an existing commitment to the Tropenmuseum of Amsterdam is expanding. So seeking advice regarding project etiquette: would people who review an article take offense if the improvement drive gets delayed? Not sure where to pose this question so fielding it here. Durova 369 04:43, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
I note that this WP is running a competition in Henry Allingham's name. I pushed his article up to GA status earlier this year, and hope to achieve FA status. To this end I asked for the article to be copy-edited last month, but another editor thinks that it doesn't need much copyediting. I'm not entering the competition myself, but is there any competitor who wishes to work with me to achieve FA status for the article? Mjroots ( talk) 08:51, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
This is the first contest I've taken part in, so forgive me if I'm asking questions that are answered somewhere. I've created my submissions page, and added my first submission here. As it was a new article, I wasn't clear on whether I should ask for it to be assessed, or wait for someone to come along and assess it. In the end, someone did assess it, and I've placed it on my submissions page. If I make later improvements, where do I go to get a new assessment?
I'm also considering returning to a previous article I worked on ( La Ferté-sous-Jouarre memorial). That was assessed in June 2008. I was thinking of returning there and doing the work needed to get it from start-class to B-class, but as it was: (a) not "recently assessed prior to [my intended] article improvements" (it was assessed 18 months ago); and (b) it was assessed as passing all the B-class criteria except one, what is the right thing to do here (apart from improve the article!)? I'm thinking that improving the article to meet one B-class criteria may not count.
A few other points. I think my submission page needs adding to various tables (should I do that myself?), and would it be possible for those tables to link to people's submissions pages, rather than their usernames? Or maybe add the submissions template to this page? Carcharoth ( talk) 10:24, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
When I created my submissions page, I copied someone else's I think. But I now see that the scoring headings on different submissions pages are different, and that the points scoring listed here is different to the scoring system listed here, and some submissions pages use scorings that are different again. I'm happy to update my own submissions page to whichever is correct, but I'm not sure which one is correct. So which scoring system is the one being used? Carcharoth ( talk) 10:47, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
I've been keeping an eye on Category:Unassessed military history articles, looking out for WW1-related articles to assess, and I was wondering where questions of scope should be addressed? I assessed Osowiec Fortress, which "saw heavy fighting during World War I from September 1914 until the Russian Army abandoned it in August 1915", but has earlier history as well. Rather than ask here (which will get tedious) is there a suitable place to ask about scope of articles, or is it a question of using your own judgment? I did try and expand the material in that article related to WW1, but no luck yet. Carcharoth ( talk) 22:08, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
Due to the fact that I'll be away during New Year's Day and the day before, I won't be able to carry out the logistical transition process between the two rounds of the contest. Therefore, in order to solve this, the current round of the contest will end 23:59, 29 December and the next round will start at 00:00, 30 December (the top 12 editors will promote into the next round). Apologise for any inconvenience. -- Eurocopter ( talk) 16:14, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
Do we need to do a new submissions page for the second round or do you just want us to continue with the old one? I'd recommend the former to minimize any confusion between rounds.-- Sturmvogel 66 ( talk) 00:32, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
It might be difficult to get points for an "In the news" entry here (earlier in the year it would have been easier), but not impossible (I have been browsing through Google News, and some things may be suitable - I saw this for example). Was wondering if anyone else was following the news and had seen anything suitable? I don't suppose there would be any bonus points for getting an ITN entry? :-) Carcharoth ( talk) 04:38, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
Due to the fact that I'm going to leave in an unexpected holiday Friday and therefore I'll not be able to update any scores nor assure any transition between contests rounds, the contest schedule will suffer the next changes:
Thanks for understanding and hope again I didn't cause major inconveniences. Keep up the good work! -- Eurocopter ( talk) 21:13, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
Be careful Maralia that your new format damaged the second scoring table. Would you be able to fix this? -- Eurocopter ( talk) 16:48, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
I have suggested here that we allow for collaboration on content. Eurocopter agreed but felt that this "should only be allowed for ACR/FAC". I'm not sure why we would want to limit this, aside from the minor logistical issue of splitting odd numbers. I do agree with the premise that "the scoring procedure would be based on agreement between the collaborating editors (in which they will decide in percentage the split of the points)." Maralia ( talk) 18:01, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
Do we need both {{ WPMILHIST World War I task force contest}} and {{ WPMILHIST World War I task force contest footer}}? I'm not sure whether a header or footer navigation template would work best, but I don't see any real benefit in having two different ones.
It would be nice, incidentally, if we could add {{ WPMILHIST Navigation}} to its usual top-right spot on all the contest pages. This works out easily enough if we go with the footer version of the contest-specific navigation box; but I can probably put together a version of the header box that aligns nicely with the standard navbox if we want to use that option instead. Kirill [talk] [pf] 02:28, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
I think the poppy themed awards Roger suggested at WT:MHCOORD would be there best course of action in regards to awards. First place gets a modified Golden Wiki that has a poppy, and this could be also done for second and third (Silver and Bronze Wikis with poppies). A poppy themed service award could also be presented to all entrants. This theme, I believe, is rather apt as a generic symbol of the First World War, and Remberance Day on which this is to start. The mention of the WikiChevrons with Oak Leaves should be removed, though, due to the issues outlined at the Coords talkpage. Cheers, Abraham, B.S. ( talk) 00:35, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
Further to Bryce's request, the initial service award adaptations are presented for your approval:
The poppy may need lightening up (done), and there may be other ideas for improvements. What do you think?
EyeSerene
talk 12:25, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
Thanks! -- Eurocopter ( talk) 12:36, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
OK, first draft of trophies:
I had to apply some shadow and relighting effects to make the poppy look as though it was part of the image and not just pasted on, which washed out the bronze wiki slightly making it almost indistinguishable from the gold, so I recoloured it as well. Hopefully the end result isn't too dark - any changes needed though, just let me know :) EyeSerene talk 19:34, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
I would love to do some serious contributing to Wikipedia as opposed to my usual lurking on talk pages. However, I would perhaps have an unfair advantage considering the vast number of projects I have in my userspace. Would this be an issue? -- Simon Harley ( talk | library | book reviews) 19:08, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
This contest is going to rely on a lot of work by reviewers in assessing articles both before and after an editor has worked on them, I think maybe the contest should in some way recognise this reliance on reviews by awarding points for the number of reviews especially for C,B,A reviews which are reliant on the project. Gnan garra 23:50, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
I see that getting an article from start to B-class is only worth 3 points, but that getting a B to GA is worth 14. But this has real potential to further back up the GA, A and FA reviews, IMO. Heck, I could dump a couple of dozen WWI articles into the GAR queue the minute the contest began. Normally I only run one or two GARs at a time, which isn't going to keep the backlog from expanding when all these articles are dumped into the queue. Perhaps we can motivate people by awarding a point for a GAR, 2 points for a substantial contribution to a ACR and, similarly, 3 points for a FAR. This could perhaps be judged by the length of comments as given by diffs. And contestants would be limited to only a single nominee at FAR. And maybe no points should be awarded for a GAR if the nominating editor called for a second opinion. This would protect both parties from charges of unreasonableness, bias, etc. Thoughts, comments?-- Sturmvogel 66 ( talk) 00:37, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
I just added a section into the scoring table then, giving a generic 2 points for a substantial review of a GAN, ACR or FAC. I'll go and add another appropiate section to each of the submissions pages, but feel free to tweak/correct as necessary! Cheers, Abraham, B.S. ( talk) 00:59, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
Could someone explain the basics of the scoring system here? Do participants get points for doing reviews or only for getting something through a review? And if an article actually falls within the WWI taskforce but hasn't specifically been tagged for the taskforce, how does that get ironed out? Maybe I'll just wimp out and restore images, although there is a GA that I'd been meaning to take to FAC... Durova 360 07:05, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
Hoping that more editors will join the contest, I'll postpone the start of it by 20 hours (till 20:00, 11th November). Apologise and hope there are no major inconveniences! -- Eurocopter ( talk) 13:56, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
I have heard about a gassed American military unit in France from which only 2 of approximately 100 soldiers survived. I know nothing else except that one of the soldiers was from Brooklyn, NY. I am asking if any WWI experts might know something about this event. 489thCorsica ( talk) 18:12, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
Hi, there has been some concern about overloading the review system. Although I won't be entering, I'd like to make a special effort to get involved in review for the contest. The WPMILHIST Copy-editing alerts template is fantastic - can we please get a "Contest" section (possibly appropriately named) where I can find relevant article reviews? Also, since pictures are eligible as entries, can we please get notification of those - actually could we get notification for all Milhist related FPCs? I realise these are not trivial coding / administrative tasks, but they would be much appreciated. Dhatfield ( talk) 19:59, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
Where is FA? :-) — Ed (talk • contribs) 00:42, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
In order to get more participants on the way, signups will be open until 1 December! I believe that nobody disagrees with this. -- Eurocopter ( talk) 20:02, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
The article has been rated as 'Start' class, but I do not see a date or review, other than the five points addressed in the talk page here. Thanks for the help! Monsieurdl mon talk 22:35, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
The various submissions pages say that DYK and ITN submissions are worth 5 points. However, on the main contest page, it says these items are worth 10 points. Which of these are correct? Thanks! Dana boomer ( talk) 22:05, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
I started looking at List of Asian American Medal of Honor recipients as a possible FLC for this contest, as it is currently tagged as under the WWI task force. However, there are no WWI soldiers present in this list. Is there another reason that this list was included under the task force, or was it just mistakenly tagged? Thanks! Dana boomer ( talk) 22:37, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/World War I task force/Contest/FAQ needs attention, up to and including a spell check... -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 03:47, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
Per discussions above, an idea has come out that we should reduce the number of points awarded for submitting a DYK/ITN and award points for reviewing Peer reviews. While I would completely agree with the second issue, being just an omission that it doesn't currently exists in the GAN/ACR/FA review scoring label, I won't disagree nor agree with the reduction of points awarded for DYKs. Although several editors expressed above decent arguments sustaining this issue, I must say that we should give a strong encouragement for users to write DYKs, keeping in mind that DYK is almost the single chance of a low-importance wiki article to get out from its obscurity (a good DYK hook might get even 200.000 views per day for its article).
As these should be the last scoring changes to be made to this contest, I invite all participants to express their recomandations, complaints and opinions now. We should also decide whether we apply or not the first change mentioned above. Cheers, -- Eurocopter ( talk) 09:00, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
I noticed that in the article Battle of Polygon Wood that it has not been reviewed by MILHIST, and yet 7 points have been given out for an improvement to B-class here. How is that so? Is there a separate place for B-class reviews that I have missed? Monsieurdl mon talk 04:28, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
Seeking suggestions: a couple of weeks ago I put up a GA (within WWI scope) for MILHIST peer review. Would like to get it to A class and FA, but time is getting stretched thin. I can probably churn out one featured picture a week for this contest, but don't generate featured articles at anything approaching that rate. Things look good for finishing the FA drive before the task force contest ends, just not right away. Mostly because an existing commitment to the Tropenmuseum of Amsterdam is expanding. So seeking advice regarding project etiquette: would people who review an article take offense if the improvement drive gets delayed? Not sure where to pose this question so fielding it here. Durova 369 04:43, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
I note that this WP is running a competition in Henry Allingham's name. I pushed his article up to GA status earlier this year, and hope to achieve FA status. To this end I asked for the article to be copy-edited last month, but another editor thinks that it doesn't need much copyediting. I'm not entering the competition myself, but is there any competitor who wishes to work with me to achieve FA status for the article? Mjroots ( talk) 08:51, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
This is the first contest I've taken part in, so forgive me if I'm asking questions that are answered somewhere. I've created my submissions page, and added my first submission here. As it was a new article, I wasn't clear on whether I should ask for it to be assessed, or wait for someone to come along and assess it. In the end, someone did assess it, and I've placed it on my submissions page. If I make later improvements, where do I go to get a new assessment?
I'm also considering returning to a previous article I worked on ( La Ferté-sous-Jouarre memorial). That was assessed in June 2008. I was thinking of returning there and doing the work needed to get it from start-class to B-class, but as it was: (a) not "recently assessed prior to [my intended] article improvements" (it was assessed 18 months ago); and (b) it was assessed as passing all the B-class criteria except one, what is the right thing to do here (apart from improve the article!)? I'm thinking that improving the article to meet one B-class criteria may not count.
A few other points. I think my submission page needs adding to various tables (should I do that myself?), and would it be possible for those tables to link to people's submissions pages, rather than their usernames? Or maybe add the submissions template to this page? Carcharoth ( talk) 10:24, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
When I created my submissions page, I copied someone else's I think. But I now see that the scoring headings on different submissions pages are different, and that the points scoring listed here is different to the scoring system listed here, and some submissions pages use scorings that are different again. I'm happy to update my own submissions page to whichever is correct, but I'm not sure which one is correct. So which scoring system is the one being used? Carcharoth ( talk) 10:47, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
I've been keeping an eye on Category:Unassessed military history articles, looking out for WW1-related articles to assess, and I was wondering where questions of scope should be addressed? I assessed Osowiec Fortress, which "saw heavy fighting during World War I from September 1914 until the Russian Army abandoned it in August 1915", but has earlier history as well. Rather than ask here (which will get tedious) is there a suitable place to ask about scope of articles, or is it a question of using your own judgment? I did try and expand the material in that article related to WW1, but no luck yet. Carcharoth ( talk) 22:08, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
Due to the fact that I'll be away during New Year's Day and the day before, I won't be able to carry out the logistical transition process between the two rounds of the contest. Therefore, in order to solve this, the current round of the contest will end 23:59, 29 December and the next round will start at 00:00, 30 December (the top 12 editors will promote into the next round). Apologise for any inconvenience. -- Eurocopter ( talk) 16:14, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
Do we need to do a new submissions page for the second round or do you just want us to continue with the old one? I'd recommend the former to minimize any confusion between rounds.-- Sturmvogel 66 ( talk) 00:32, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
It might be difficult to get points for an "In the news" entry here (earlier in the year it would have been easier), but not impossible (I have been browsing through Google News, and some things may be suitable - I saw this for example). Was wondering if anyone else was following the news and had seen anything suitable? I don't suppose there would be any bonus points for getting an ITN entry? :-) Carcharoth ( talk) 04:38, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
Due to the fact that I'm going to leave in an unexpected holiday Friday and therefore I'll not be able to update any scores nor assure any transition between contests rounds, the contest schedule will suffer the next changes:
Thanks for understanding and hope again I didn't cause major inconveniences. Keep up the good work! -- Eurocopter ( talk) 21:13, 27 January 2010 (UTC)