Jump to content

Wikipedia:The Core Contest/Entries/April2014 archive

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Literature

[edit]
  • Created "Definition" section
  • Created "Major Forms" section
  • Created "Awards" section
  • 6 to 54 citations (x9 expansion), created proper "References" section and also "Further reading"
  • Removed the bloated, uncited "Poetry" section; rp. with section under major forms
  • Started to reference the "History"
  • Started to rework lede reflecting new content
  • Comments - >214,000 views in the last 90 days. Identified as a Core article. There are significant omissions in the article, and existing content lacks citations.
Topic proving vastly difficult to compactly describe; "definition of l." cries out for its own article, and the "history of the definition of l." is a separate issue in itself! Also the current structure of the article is an utter mess; going to attempt to reformulate it along the lines of Law. MasterOfHisOwnDomain (talk) 11:18, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comments on end state: Original article lacked major content and had almost no citations. Struggled with the difficulty of defining almost everything, and generally with the scope of the topic, but happy that everything provided has been thoroughly referenced. Going to continue with this article for the time being. MasterOfHisOwnDomain (talk) 00:17, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by judges

[edit]
  • Great choice - currently an eyesore with two big tags at the top and a long list at the bottom that is begging to be buffed and converted into prose. Also (amazingly) lacks a definition..... Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 07:52, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • The reorganization was a good idea, since the previous version addressed very little of the core concept and instead went off on tangents. Readable prose was increased from 18,837 to 19,499 characters, but that datum belies the significant deletions of tangential material, and it does not count the three bulleted paragraphs under "Prose", because I used the DYK Check tool to count characters, and it does not count bulleted characters. A couple of dubious images have been replaced with more satisfying on-topic images. The ugly referencing and NOR tags at the top have been dealt with, but a new tag has been placed under the longstanding section "Legal status" to indicate a shortfall in global viewpoint. There is a redlink pointing to a supposed "main" article about the definition of literature, which is of course no use to the reader, there being no such article, even though it is a good idea for encyclopedic expansion. The UK style of spelling has not been applied throughout; there are remnants of US spelling that came from past editors. On the whole, the concept of literature has been explained far better for the reader, thanks to MasterOfHisOwnDomain. Binksternet (talk) 04:49, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by others

[edit]

An excellent choice given the importance of the topic and lack of sources and content. A very broad article though which will need a lot of book and research to fully do it justice.♦ Dr. Blofeld 23:01, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Good choice. I have been thinking about that article for a while, but have been biting off chunks around the periphery, instead of diving in head first. Best, of luck on that. Any little bit will be a good step in the right direction, Sadads (talk) 23:28, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Syndrome

[edit]
  • Nominator - Canada Hky (talk) 01:00, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Improvements - [| Starting Diff]; [of Contest Diff]
    • I didn't get as much done as I would have liked, it is somewhat tricky to find sources for some of these basic concepts. I believe I have provided a much more useful framework for the article than was previously present. I sourced definitions, and provided examples for some of the more basic distinctions. I have added a few references, and hopefully made it less choppy. Canada Hky (talk) 19:38, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments - Basic article, a bit of a hub for a lot of medical pages, > 50,000 views in the last 90 days, and is listed as a core topic.
    • This article needs to be largely reworked to be cohesive and helpful to those who stumble across it, rather than simply being a place where people show up to add info about a syndrome. I don't know how much content will be added during the period of this content, but I am confident there will be a lot of movement.

Comments by judges

[edit]
  • Choppy and stubby with a paltry six references....good choice for buffing. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 07:54, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm looking at this diff of contest-period effort. The article was taken from 3963 characters of readable prose to 3238; a reduction. The refs went from six (really just four) to ten. What really happened here is that the body of the article was greatly trimmed of extraneous wording and instead focused on the meat of the topic. However, I find that the lead section has become somewhat more opaque to the reader, not as friendly to the newcomer. I like what was done with the article body but I would like to see, yes, a dumbing-down of the lead section, to tell unsophisticated readers what the topic is about. Binksternet (talk) 05:42, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by others

[edit]
  • An interesting topic to select and probably somewhat challenging to get to the nitty gritty. May you get a lot of points just for the selecting this topic and showing that you have chosen a topic that is right for you (I can not promise anything, because am not one of the judges). The OED would be a good place to start perhaps. Snowman (talk) 23:44, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I tend to get the impression that the competitor will need to make alliances with other editors to write about this specialised topic. I would guess that networking and enlisting help at relevant WikiProjects would be a strategy that could advance the article. Snowman (talk) 20:42, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • The OED gives the definition; "A concurrence of several symptoms in a disease; a set of such concurrent symptoms." Snowman (talk) 23:44, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • The definition in my 1995 Stedman's Medical Dictionary is "The aggregate of signs and symptoms associated with any morbid process, and constituting together the picture of the disease." I think that the article tends to confuse this general definition with diseases and disorders that are named with the format "Abcxyz syndrome". Snowman (talk) 21:38, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also, in the OED is an everyday use of the word syndrome. Someone could say that; "He has got the "Football sit-down syndrome" (I just made that one up), for someone who sits down a lot and watches the football on the TV and has mood swings depending on which team has possession of the football. This would not be relevant to a medical article except for clarification, so I am not sure if it is needed in the article, but it does link a collection behaviours with a word for them, and it might be illustrative. Please do not quote me, but use some examples from literature - the OED has some examples, all quite modern. This might not be in the scope of the article, but that depends on what you what the article to be about. Snowman (talk) 23:44, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • I briefly had a "common usage" section, but could not find appropriate sourcing.
The OED has some examples from English literature. Snowman (talk) 20:19, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Whoops, I meant Marfan's syndrome. I have put the "s" on the end, because that is the way it is used in the UK where I come from. What is "n=1". I have Wiki-linked Conn's syndrome above. Snowman (talk) 20:24, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
In using the term "n=1", Canada Hky was saying that each person here has only one opinion/viewpoint, so it is better to tap a larger pool. The term "n=1" is from statistics: it means "the number of data points is equal to one", that there was only one sample taken, from which it is impossible to sense a trend. Binksternet (talk) 21:43, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I would find it much more preferable, if User Canada Hky answered that himself. How can I be sure that User Binksternet's interpretation is correct. n=1 is from maths or statistics. In maths n is the first number, so I wondered if he meant commenting on complex things was too advanced and that a discussion at first principals was preferable. Snowman (talk) 22:05, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Try substituting "I am not sure we should be going off our respective personal opinions" for the Canada Hky statement "I am not sure we should be going off our respective n=1." You'll find it makes more sense than the fiction of 'n' being the first number in maths. The first number is of course 1. Regarding unknown numbers, x was the symbol used by my teacher to introduce the notion. Not 'n'. Binksternet (talk) 03:00, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Sometimes you need more than one variable. Snowman (talk) 22:02, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Quote from the article: "A syndrome can refer to the traits that suggest the presence of a disease, or indicate a greater likelihood of developing the disease." Please make this more readably and understandable. I think that anything (or collection of anythings) that indicates a greater likelihood of developing a disease is called a risk factor. Please explain; "... or indicate a greater likelihood of developing the disease." Snowman (talk) 23:44, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • To me, a disease entity (not including genetic syndromes) called an ABCXYZ syndrome is a sort of a diagnosis, but one that leaves open a list of possibilities in the differential diagnosis. For example Conn's syndrome. Snowman (talk) 23:44, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not all of the elements of the syndrome may be present, which may lead to some uncertainty in diagnosis. Snowman (talk) 23:44, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Where in the world is the term "association" used instead of using "syndrome"? Snowman (talk) 23:44, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Genetics clinics. It is under the "Medical genetics" heading with an example both of a current association, and as a condition that was renamed to "syndrome". They are not the same thing. Canada Hky (talk) 18:40, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have never heard of the word "association" used like that before, so I wondered if it was a USA use. See the term "VACTERL syndrome" used in the heading on a webpage from the UKs leading quaternary referral children's hospital. "VACTERL syndrome" within quotation marks got 14,000 his in my web search. To learn more about it the use of "association" and "syndrome" here, I would welcome clarification and perhaps expansion in the article. Snowman (talk) 20:06, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am not certain, but I would have thought that the article may be more understandable and readable with a few more examples. You might find some suitable syndromes in this list of diseases; List of eponymously named diseases. Snowman (talk) 23:44, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • I disagree entirely. A list of examples just encourages more people to find it and add their own, without explaining the concepts behind them. This article is most useful when it accurately defines and explains a syndrome, rather than being a collection of examples. The number of hits this article gets combined with the difficulty in sourcing this article has demonstrated that to me time and time again. Canada Hky (talk) 18:40, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Everyone is entitled to their own opinions. I have thought about this a bit more; I think that using several well-known syndromes as examples is likely to help people understand the article better, because they can extract the general from the particular. Snowman (talk) 20:06, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]


===Grammar===

Start class, core article, Level 3 vital, few, low quality references, very cursory content with many misleading or incorrect statements 115422 views in the last 90 days.

Comments by judges

[edit]

====Comments by others====

Novelist

[edit]

Comments by judges

[edit]
  • Cool - impressive to do from a redirect. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 07:56, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • This was difficult for me to judge, since the work began on 19 December 2013 in userspace, with 22kb of draft material being moved into mainspace on 11 February. So I came up with this diff of solely post-mainspace work, stopping at 9 March with the contest conclusion. I see an increase of readable prose characters from 13299 to 16934, and an increase from 25 to 33 references. One image was added. An etymology paragraph was added, and a genre section with two paragraphs. Categories and a portal were added. Overall, this is great work taking a redirect and creating an article from scratch, but within the contest period the improvements, while laudable, were modest. Binksternet (talk) 03:47, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the assessment. However, I have a few concerns:
To be fair: the draft before I signed up for the contest (around February 5 ) was really really rough, and mostly me taking notes, not actually an "article" (11 refs, and a bunch of underdeveloped prose). Between then and the start date, I was simply prepping my research because I knew the contest would be coming up. I did considerable work in user space to take notes and compose my thoughts. This is no different then preparing a draft offline, except that I showed my work. At the very least my edits starting on the 10th should count (here is the diff from the 10th), but I am a little put off that a draft (again mostly personal notes, and rough ideas, not a live and public set of content) counts against me. What if I had done it offline? You never would have known.
Moreover, in other community processes, like DYK, that note-taking time wouldn't count against me. The draft was not a "public" resource, thus as a core piece of content, it was not usable. Good content requires long gestation on both the content, and the larger context in which something is happening. The time in user-space was for that creative reflection, not for a public use of sources.
I hope the judges take this under consideration when assessing the improvements. Sadads (talk) 15:47, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
For what it's worth, Sadads's argument that userspace drafts should not be treated differently from offline drafts makes a lot of sense to me. Especially if it is true that most of the work on the draft was done after the contest was announced, then the work was clearly done in the spirit of the contest, a "sharp burst of activity and article improvement..." -hugeTim (talk) 00:06, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, Sadads and Hugetim for your insights. Sadads, I can see how your diff from the 10th of February has relevance, as it includes all work completed during the contest period. And I want to stress that Wikipedia and the readers have benefited greatly from your effort. Speaking as just one of five judges, I think that prep work performed prior to the contest should not count in the contest. Perhaps mine is a minority opinion. Despite my stance, I like the results you obtained, and I wish you well. Binksternet (talk) 05:16, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the support @Hugetim:, and I understand the position @Binksternet:. If I had known it would count against me I would have prepped offline/elsewhere because the content was in the midst of a busy part of the semester for me, so I did the work when I had the time in the spirit of the contest. Do we know when other judges will be commenting? Sadads (talk) 19:18, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
We'll be commenting very soon (a day or two I suspect) - we've all formed opinions and are trying to come to consensus (in a good-natured way of course!) cheers, Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 19:40, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Ah! Okay, wasn't sure what the methodology was going to be. Figured I might have seen a few more voices in the judge comments, Sadads (talk) 20:09, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Poke, Sadads (talk) 15:05, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by others

[edit]

Gro Harlem Brundtland

[edit]

Comments by judges

[edit]

Comments by others

[edit]

===Bacon===

  • Nominator - Newyorkadam (talk) 03:18, 8 February 2014 (UTC)Newyorkadam[reply]
  • Improvements -
  • Notes - I have been working on this article (Bacon) for over a month now (and am not expecting to receive credit in this contest for my work on the article before the contest began). It was recently made a level 4 vital article in 'Life'.

Comments by judges

[edit]

====Comments by others==== I've decided not to do Bacon as a core contest entry. -Newyorkadam (talk) 13:06, 27 February 2014 (UTC)Newyorkadam[reply]

Bicycle

[edit]
  • Nominator - Jamesx12345 (talk · contribs)
  • Level 3 VA - has been an FA and GA, so is mostly good, but some of it is a confusing mess.

Comments by judges

[edit]
  • (belatedly) interesting choice - etymology section slim - stuff to add - when "bike" arose as an abbreviation for starters. Why is the hexadecimal code there? Needs more inline references. Try and combine some choppy 1-2 sentence paras into larger ones for ease of reading. Prosify uses section - probably mention bike use in China somewhere. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:27, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'm afraid I've not been able to get round to it properly yet. It's still quite rough in quite a few places. Jamesx12345 09:53, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • So, a lot of edits happened to this article during the contest period, most of them by editors who are not entered in the Core Contest. The most identifiable contest-related effort by Jamesx12345 was this sequence of edits from 10 to 12 February. One further edit by Jamesx12345 was soon reverted. Going by the connected series of edits, the article increased slightly from 35,218 to 35,309 characters of readable prose. Three references were added. The number of images was reduced from 31 to 24, with images of little worth removed, for instance this one. The images were sorted and selected for applicability. I like how the very minor term "pushbike" has been removed from the first sentence. The ridiculous paragraphs about "sucker pole" and unicode have been removed, replaced by a relevant paragraph about theft. Other than these changes, the article remains much as it was before the contest. The 3-day effort is commendable but more could have been achieved during the contest period. Binksternet (talk) 06:32, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by others

[edit]
  • I'm new to this contest and am not sure whether collaboration is encouraged or discouraged. Anyway, I'm a keen cyclist and have some good sources about the history of the bicycle so I'm interested to see what happens here. I'll put it on my watch list and Jamesx12345 (talk · contribs) can perhaps use me as a sounding board. Andrew (talk) 09:17, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Despite being a former featured article, it does not look like a finished product with its lists and blocks of unreferenced text. Its a bigger topic than I first thought and it is a good choice for this competition. I think that the article needs a huge amount of work. I do not know what improvements are the main editors have planned, but I few suggestions below might help in a small way. I would think that the page may need a collaboration or a peer review to help to get it in shape. I agree with the general style of the article with sections and signposts to main articles on sub-topics. The challenge would be to make this article a comprehensive "portal" page for the topic keeping its scope in mind. I think that it this is a mammoth task and any steps made in the right direction will have been worthwhile. I am not sure if I should have written to following on the articles talk page or here. Snowman (talk) 16:02, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Copy-editing is needed to amend issues that are far too many to list; for example "In addition, the carbon dioxide generated in the production and transportation of the food required by the bicyclist, per mile travelled, is less than 1/10 that generated by energy efficient cars." To me, this is not like for like. If a cyclist's food production and food transportation is included is his or her carbon foot print, then this does not compare fairly with only the energy consumption of a car. Cars need factories, garages, road networks, a finance industry, oil exploration and extraction, petrol stations, all the workers in associated parts factories and much more, so I would not know how to calculate the net carbon footprint for car travel per unit distance. Why not compare the carbon footprint with walking, a moped or a motorcycle? Also, another example; I think that some general spanners and general tools can be used on bikes and they do not need to be specialised tools as implied in the article. Actually, most of the tools I use on my bike are general purpose tools or car tools. However, some bike tool kits may contain special light weight versions of tools to carry on the bike. Snowman (talk) 16:02, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Include bike seat and handle bars in the introduction. Snowman (talk) 16:02, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • The topic is bicycle, so presumably different types of bike are worth mentioning in detail. More detail may be needed on bikes with stabilisers that children learn to balance on, tandems for two riders, and other bikes mentioned in a list in the article, which includs BMX bikes. Professional racing bikes; bikes without spokes and covered wheels for racing; fixed wheel bikes; aerodynamic considerations for racing bikes. Of course, cyclist, has its own Wiki article and too much detail on the cyclist would be out of the scope of the "bicycle" article, except with bike design and development go hand-in-hand with cyclists or for other clear associations. Bikes powered by a combination of a peddle power and an engine. Is a moped a cycle? Snowman (talk) 16:02, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "A number of formal and industry standards exist for bicycle components to help make spare parts exchangeable". Since when? I have found interchangeability of spare parts a problem with my bike. Snowman (talk) 16:02, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I know (and thanks for the comments). The whole article is quite out of date (see how it addresses disk brakes) and is poorly sourced in large parts. It's a shame it didn't get any proper improvement during this Contest, but I might try and do it for the Wikicup. Jamesx12345 16:15, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Job (role)

[edit]
  • Nominator - Andrew (talk) 09:17, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Improvements -
  • Comments - this is a level 2 vital article but is currently start class, having no references, for example. I will also look at employment which is a level 3 vital article which is also start class. The topics are related and there was talk of merging them. The consensus was not to merge so it makes sense to keep material about employment law in that article while the job article takes a wider view. Andrew (talk) 09:17, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by judges

[edit]
  • This is a decent choice, I feel. It's certainly high in "coreness" (I would, had I made the lists myself, put it at low level 2 or high level 3). One thing that I would note, however, is that Job (role) has around 90,000 hits a year, while Employment has around 385,000 hits a year. Both are in need of work (with job needing it more direly), and both need prose that helps distinguish one from the other. This thread might be of interest to you. Sven Manguard Wha? 04:52, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Umm, I note some sources added...were these going to be inlined? Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:22, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Here's the diff of Andrew's contest-period work—just three edits total. The referencing has been improved such that a list of possible sources has been inserted into a section called "Sources". The problem with this is that the indicated "sources" are not necessarily the sources for the article text—they are just potential sources. None of the references were inline citations, and no inline citations were added. A bit of trimming has been performed, mainly two paragraphs that had been fact-tagged from 2007. There is a lot of improvement left for the next person. Binksternet (talk) 06:46, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by others

[edit]

As an economist, I was eyeing this, but the vagueness of the topic seems a little unwieldy. As the article stands, it is basically a dictionary entry (which of course does not belong). I'll be curious to see what content you think to add. So far I don't think the creator's 2008 prediction that it would mature with time has panned out, but I hope you can prove him right. -Hugetim (talk) 19:13, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Then there's wage labour, employment, labour economics, and doubtless many others. One wonders how many of the 80K-odd pageviews are people looking for a job, not information about "job". Johnbod (talk) 09:51, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Poultry

[edit]
  • Nominator - Cwmhiraeth (talk · contribs)
  • Improvements - This is a start class article with a lead, a table and some information on poultry as food. I see great opportunities for expansion, after all, the topic in my Everyman's Encyclopaedia occupies four pages of close print, though care of a broody hen is perhaps a bit too detailed for inclusion in Wikipedia. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 11:48, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by judges

[edit]
  • So as of now sitting at 3513 words. I'd put para 3 as para 1 in definition section. The source material for definition is tertiary (apart from Dixon 1848). I wonder if there are any more recent discussions on definition in secondary sources that might have more detail to add. Having material on cockfighting seems extraneous to topic material. I wonder about balance - thus whether there should be more info in the chicken, duck and turkey subsections as they are eaten more frequently. The other thing is how much more chicken is eaten than, say, quail, or duck than goose. Any info that can be added to give a lay reader some proportion or scale would be good I think. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:13, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your comments. I have dealt with all these points I think. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 20:21, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is the diff I am looking at, with the contest period concluding at the end of 9 March. It's a substantial expansion, even with the removal of the context-free table of examples. The refs went from 5 to 63, and the readable text went from 2653 characters to 27525—a ten-fold expansion. This is now a very useful article, thanks to Cwmhiraeth. Binksternet (talk) 03:24, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by others

[edit]
Thank you for your comments. I have dealt with some of these points while others I think are too specialised for a general article on poultry. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 20:21, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Frank Sinatra

[edit]

Comments by judges

[edit]
  • @Gareth E Kegg: Looks on the improve. Tightened up. what strikes me is there are some choppy paras in the timelines. Congealing these into larger paragraphs would make for better flow. There are a stack of books in the further reading section that would be good to somehow refer from Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 23:39, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am looking at this 6-day diff, which includes a little bit of action by other editors. Gareth took the article from 49,614 to 46,035 characters of readable prose: an overall reduction. It is always difficult to gauge the value of reductions, but one addition is clear: the discography section was expanded to include the main studio albums, and filmography section was added. A big pop-culture section of "portrayals" has been trimmed and changed from list format to prose. Altogether this is good work, helpful to the reader. Binksternet (talk) 07:35, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by others

[edit]

Condiment

[edit]
  • Nominator - Newyorkadam (talk · contribs)
  • Improvements -
  • Comments- Level 4 vital article in Life. Not even a single section of prose, and rated as start-class. Goal is to get at least B-class.

Comments by judges

[edit]

Comments by others

[edit]

Wage

[edit]

Comments by judges

[edit]
  • Good work in working up a lead and beginning the expand. Lack of resolution of the merge makes things difficult I figure. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 18:41, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Here's the diff I have been looking at, covering just four edits by Carwil. The article was expanded from 1938 characters of readable prose to 3316, not counting the Moses I. Finley quote. Two references were increased to eight, or six if similar authors are counted as one source. An origins section was established, containing four paragraphs. Unfortunately, the two ugly templates at the top were not taken down: one from 2009 complaining about not enough references, and one from January 2013 suggesting a merge which did not happen. More globalization is needed on this topic. Actually a lot of information has not been brought to the reader's attention. This article continues to need more work. Binksternet (talk) 07:20, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by others

[edit]

I remember there being a question of what to do with wage vs. salary when this was nominated as a TAFI (Wikipedia:Today's articles for improvement) article. I hope you find a way to make it work. :)--Coin945 (talk) 03:06, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Philosophy of science

[edit]
  • Nominator - Hugetim (talk · contribs)
  • Improvements - looked like this...now looks like this (diff)
    • Defined structure (and thereby clarified the scope)
    • Added history section; added statistics, economics, and values subsections
    • Re-wrote Justifying science subsection (diff) and extensively revised entire article (overall, removing over half the article (21kB) and adding even more (24kB))
    • Converted math, chemistry, and psychology subsections to prose
    • Clean-up: removed redundant content that became apparent once the structure was organized; trimmed See also section from 43 links (plus 100 philosopher names) to 6, incorporating most links into the main body; trimmed Further reading from 45 to 9 entries; trimmed External links from 14 to 5
    • Increased number of images from 0 to 9.
    • Started expanding lead. -hugeTim (talk) 00:17, 9 March 2014 (UTC) (and finished it late, diff -hugeTim (talk) 04:56, 9 March 2014 (UTC))[reply]
  • Comments- Level 3 vital article in Science, rated as start-class. My goal is to get to at least C-class, focusing on improving the organization into a more cohesive structure and adding prose where needed.
    • Rewrote sub-section on theory confirmation; added history section; added philosophy of statistics sub-section; converted math, chemistry, psychology, and economics sub-sections from lists to prose; trimmed See also section from 43 links (plus 100 philosopher names) to 6, incorporating most links into the main body; begun work harmonizing the section of Science supposedly summarizing this article (diff); and established a consistent structure, removing redundant content. -hugeTim (talk) 14:28, 27 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by judges

[edit]
  • @Hugetim: - not a big expansion (300 words only), inreasing inline refs from 46 to 65 good - lead should be bigger - no [citation needed] tag needed in lead as all points made in lead should be in (and cited) in body of text. In general we try to use succinct headings and not use article name in heading. I wonder if calling first bit is better called definition than What counts as science?, though I do think the latter is more engaging. Interesting quandary really. I think I'd flip the first two paras in the What counts as science? section. This section needs to be really engaging and easy to read. Good groundwork already. Alot of this is written in nice plain English. Try to congeal or enlarge 1-2 sentence paras into proper paragraphs. Nice start anyway. Also, if a source is important enough to be listed in a further reading section, I wonder whether it can be used as a reference. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 23:20, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the feedback! I wasn't aiming to increase the length of the article since it seemed to already be the right size. Anyway, the net size change may be misleading - if you tally up the changes on the history page, I removed 21kB of unsourced, redundant, or inappropriate content and added 24kB of sourced content covering previously neglected content areas. I haven't touched the lead yet except to add that {{cn}} tag, which is meant to signal that that point is not in the body of text-is there a better template for that purpose? Reworking the lead is the last step of my plan because I am overhauling the content so much. As for the Further Reading, please note that I cut it down from 45 to 11 entries. Among the remaining, 6 of 11 are indeed cited as references already. I'd be happy to remove the section altogether though - is that your recommendation? Thanks, again! -hugeTim (talk) 01:50, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I see trimmed categorization and bottom navboxes, substantially better referencing, the deletion of the "Philosophers of science" section, the addition of Nine images (from having none), a significant pruning of "Further reading", and much better organization including the "Current approaches" division to separate historical approaches. The ugly cleanup template has been addressed. The sections which needed to be presented in prose have seen the lists deleted and prose substituted. Thirty question marks in the article body have been reduced to eighteen. The importance of Kuhn has been given increased presence. The lead section has been properly expanded to give the reader a better summary of the article. I would have thought that Popper deserved more credit given to him in the article body, with appropriate text expansion, and especially explicit mention of him in the lead section. Good work! Binksternet (talk) 19:43, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you! I have two quick notes in response. Whether a mention of Popper in the lead is due seems debatable to me. Certainly he is an important figure in the history of philosophy of science, but Popper's prominence in popular discussions of science is out of proportion to his current importance within the discipline of philosophy of science. (For instance, the Stanford Encyclopedia article on him states: "In later years Popper came under philosophical criticism for his prescriptive approach to science and his emphasis on the logic of falsification. This was superseded in the eyes of many by the socio-historical approach taken by Thomas Kuhn...") Note also that the Popper article in the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy contains 15 question marks, 10 of which appear in the main text (and not inside quotation marks). In other words, rhetorical questions may be appropriate for articles on philosophy. -hugeTim (talk) 21:17, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by others

[edit]
  • Excellent choice for the competition. The article sounds erudite. I found these words and phrases in the introduction; metaphysics, ontology, epistemology, logical positivism, Continental philosophy (with a capital "C"), paradigm, coherentist approach. I do not understand any of these words. Am I normal? Snowman (talk) 16:38, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'm open to suggestions, but I'm not sure it's reasonable to expect to fully understand every word you read. The lead tells you that metaphysics, ontology, and epistemology are branches of philosophy overlapping with philosophy of science, and that's all you really need to know to understand the lead. Likewise, the context tells you that logical positivism is an important philosophical movement and paradigm is a key term made popular by Thomas Kuhn - but I think you have a point on those two. Continental philosophy and coherentism are actually given brief definitions in the lead, but I suppose that could be made clearer. -hugeTim (talk) 18:54, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It would be a great addition. I would suggest putting it between chemistry and biology, perhaps. Unfortunately, the article on philosophy of geography is little more than a stub with no third-party sources at all, so creating this section may take a lot of work. -hugeTim (talk) 18:54, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "hypothesizing explanations for what is observed" Could an explanation be a hypothesis? Is this equivalent to saying "hypothesizing hypotheses". Would it be better to say this differently or not? Snowman (talk) 22:19, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The point is that it is inference to an explanation/hypothesis rather than a simple generalization of the observations. I don't think there's anything clearly wrong with the sentence, but it could likely be worded more elegantly. -hugeTim (talk) 19:24, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I do no understand your reply, because to me, a generalization of observations are not the same as an explanation (or a hypotheses) for the same observations. Snowman (talk) 20:08, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That's exactly the point I was trying to make. Check out the sentence that you quoted from. It is clearly contrasting generalizations and explanations/hypotheses. I suspect rereading the subsection in question (or better yet, following some of the links) would put you in a better position to understand the content and then recommend improvements. Look, to my mind, this is really not the place for such detailed comments on the article. I would welcome you to post such comments on the article's talk page or else just make some edits yourself. I appreciate the feedback, but I'm not myself interested in continuing these discussions. -hugeTim (talk) 23:12, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I don't understand what you're getting at. Are you suggesting clarifying the (overlapping) definitions of "theory" and "hypothesis" somewhere in the introduction? Was this a cause of confusion for you or something that seems like an omission? -hugeTim (talk) 19:24, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I am puzzled why only hypothesis is included in the introduction. If hypothesis and theses overlap, then it is only a partial overlap, surely? Snowman (talk) 20:08, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ottonian art

[edit]

Comments by judges

[edit]
@Johnbod: wow, massive increase from 516 to 3840 words and zero to 58 inline refs, as well as having a bunch of books in the ref section. I am sure this is a good one to address some Anglophone systemic bias. Fine tuning - add descriptor at first mention of Hubert Janitschek - mention him in body of text. Ditto for Theophanu. Why is Liuthar group in bold? I did wonder if first para of Context section was a wee bit essay-like on first reading but then again it is interpretive. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 22:48, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! Janitschek is in the first line of the article. Theophanu done. Liuthar group and a couple of other things redirect here, so should be bolded. There were a couple of lines from the original which were rather essayish, now removed or rewritten. Johnbod (talk) 23:55, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Wonderful rewrite on a forgotten period of art. Secret account 02:52, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by others

[edit]

Eastern Front (World War I)

[edit]

Comments by judges

[edit]
  • Good choice @Chris troutman: - starting with this with 21 inline refs and 3657 words. Quite a few [citation needed] tags. Always good to choose an article with a big ugly tag at top. Up to 28 refs as of now and looks a little tighter. My military history is not good. Issues - still needs more cites, article names needn't be in headings like Role of Women on the Eastern Front etc. Casualties should cover the German side as well, surely? Good luck anyway. I'd ask for a military Peer Review as well. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 22:43, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Here's the diff I'm looking at to compare initial and final form during the contest period. I like how a bunch of fact tags were replaced with references. I also agree with the removal of the undue section about Russian propaganda, though I think a sentence or so could have been incorporated into the overall propaganda section, using the high quality reference "United by Barbed Wire". The gallery of maps was broken up and incorporated, which I think is good. Binksternet (talk) 21:53, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by others

[edit]

Drink

[edit]
  • Nominator - Worm That Turned (talk · contribs)
  • Improvements - Looked like this... now looks like this.
  • Comments- I've been meaning to bring Drink up to scratch for ages, but never got round to it. I probably won't finish in time, but hey, at least I'll have tried! WormTT(talk) 13:27, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, I've done what I can in the timescale. It needs a lot more work and I'll be carrying on with it next week. I'd also understand if this isn't eligible, as the majority of my work has been restructuring the article and re-using text from other articles. Either way, I've had the impetus to get going on it, which has pleased me! WormTT(talk) 15:27, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by judges

[edit]
  • Wow @Worm That Turned:, 4 inline refs and some crud to begin with ...increased to this is good. Sorry about late reply. At 3227 words, plenty of room to buff and enlarge. More history might be good. My thoughts are that overview is misnamed - first para could be either biology or nutrition and second is history. The lead is an overview so no reason to have a second overview. Need to expand some one sentence sections. Could maybe look at merging some of the processes and types - e.g. carbonation (?) ...and a shitload more inline refs but a healthy 73 is a good start...now go see what you can do in the time remaning ;) Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 22:35, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
There is so much more to do... A lot more about the science and a complete Health section (health benefits and dangers from alcohol, fruit juice, fizzy pop and energy drinks spring to mind). Theres a lot more to write about money too - how drinks are marketed etc. This is no where near done. Like I said, I will be doing more next week and in the longer term future, but for the competition that's as far as it goes. WormTT(talk) 08:15, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Aside from the additions, the article was certainly improved by removals: the liquid measurements table, the lists without context, and the dubious material about soup, buttermilk and yogurt. The expansion added some good material, but there is some overlap with material perhaps better suited to the Drinking article. One thing I would like to see in the article is that, in ancient times, standing water was often unsafe because of microbes, and so the fermented alcoholic beverages were safer than water. See Biotechnology for Beginners, page 2, for one of many possible references. Beer was hauled daily to Egyptian and Roman military expeditions so that the soldiers would not get sick on local water. This same information needs to be added to the article about the history of beer. Cheers! Binksternet (talk) 00:31, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks a lot for that Binksternet. As I said, there's an awful lot left to do - I did the quick wins, pulling from the already well written articles elsewhere on the encyclopedia and putting some structure in. I'm going to spend quite a bit of time learning and expanding all the process areas, but some of the articles are not nearly in that good shape, so it will take more work. Ho hum! Anyway, you're absolutely right, there is some overlap and I will try to minimise it - but some overlap is necessary as the topics do align so tightly. I will make sure to add your suggestions though - thanks for the source! WormTT(talk) 08:24, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by others

[edit]
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:The_Core_Contest/Entries/April2014_archive&oldid=1229152252"