Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Aviation/Contest/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

Already improved articles

I've already improved two articles (Iberworld and British Airways) and they have been reviewed (except BA). Iberworld improved from Start Class, to C-Class and BA is going in for nomination to Good Article. (In the BA article, my first edit was on July 2nd if you want to see how much I've done). Will I still get points for this? (Iberworld was only reviewed yesterday - see Wikipedia:WikiProject Aviation/Assessment). If so, then I will sign up. Thanks, --Plane Person (talk) 09:33, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

That's great, but I think the start date will still be a few days away. I've just finished all the personal invites and still have to put general announcements up on the project pages. Also, there a few things to clear up with the contestants regarding final scoring and rules. Don't worry about missing out on points though, I know there is still a lot of work left to do on a lot of articles. - Trevor MacInnis contribs 15:03, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
The confusion may stem from the FAQ statement that the contest is already running. Binksternet (talk) 20:16, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
Oops, fixed it. Too many things going on, sorry. - Trevor MacInnis contribs 04:06, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Scoring system

is everyone happy with the points setup? Are there any other items to add? - Trevor MacInnis contribs 15:08, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

They seem alright to me but I am curious what "Initial article assessment" stands for could you please elaborate. -Marcusmax(speak) 20:48, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
Oh that's just me trying to reduce the backlog of Category:Unassessed aviation articles, which isn't much of a backlog at all. I was thinking of adding points for improving an article from Stub/Start to C/B-Class, so we need acurate assessments to determine the articles starting point, thus the Initial article assessment and Complete B-Class checklist items. I had also though of adding points for Category:Aviation articles needing infoboxes, but maybe that wwould just be a part of the article improvement points. - Trevor MacInnis contribs 21:09, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
There are actualy a bunch of areas with a backlog needing cleanup. Maybe we can have a "Specialized task of the month", where one month it's "Add missing geocoordinate data", the next it's "Correct potentially dated statements from...", or a number of others from Wikipedia:WikiProject Aviation/Maintenance/Cleanup listing or other pages. - Trevor MacInnis contribs 04:34, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
I like the monthly theme idea. A few extra points for "Specialized Task of the Month," would keep it interesting. - Canglesea (talk) 21:45, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
I think the scoring system needs a Stub/Start to C/B Class points catagory, is it possible for them to be added. Currently, the competition is only allowing you to work on large articles which are already B-Class or above. Thanks, --Plane Person (talk) 15:11, 25 August 2009 (UTC).
I've had a thought about the scoring system again. If an editor workds on a B-Class article and gets it to Good Article status, then they get 20 points even though they have only moved it up one level whereas if you move a C Class to a B Class, you get 0.1 of point. Would it not be better to award 5 points for each level you have increased the articles status up to B Class. Above B Class, you would be awarded 10 points for a good article, 15 points for an A Class article and 25 points for a featured article. For example, if you moved a Start Class to a B Class, you would get 10 points for two status increases. Just wondering what your thoughts on this are. Thanks, --Plane Person (talk) 15:30, 25 August 2009 (UTC).

{undent} I'll add that today. I just want to clarify that the .1 points for "Complete B-Class checklist" isn't for working on the article and making it B-Class, it is just for adding the B-Class checklist: 

| b1 <!--Referencing & citations--> = <yes/no>
| b2 <!--Coverage and accuracy  --> = <yes/no>
| b3 <!--Structure              --> = <yes/no>
| b4 <!--Grammar and style      --> = <yes/no>
| b5 <!--Supporting materials   --> = <yes/no>

to the {{WPAVIATION}} banner on the talk page, and filling in the yes' or no's. In order to get points for improving an article, you need to verify what level it is already at. An assessed as Start-Class article without the checklist done may actually be a C or B-Class article already. To get your 5 points for improving an article, you'll need to check the banner, find the items tagged "no" and then improve the article, changing the items to "yes" after you're done. I'll have to add something to this effect to the rules.- Trevor MacInnis contribs 19:20, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

How about this for a article improvement points:
Points awarded
Ending class
Beginning
class 		Start C B GA A FA Total
Stub +1 +5 +10 +15 +20 +25 76
Start +5 +10 +15 +20 +25 75
C +10 +15 +20 +25 70
B +15 +20 +25 65
GA +20 +25 45
A +25 25

The points accumulate so therefore:

  • stub to FA gets you +1+5+10+15+20+25=76 points.
  • B to FA gets you +15+20+25=65 points.

I did it this way because the higher in levels you go, the harder to upgrade to the next level it gets, so going from B to GA is worth more than going from Start to C, but less than going from Start to GA.

Also, you don't have to complete every step, meaning you don't have to have the article become a GA or A-class before it becomes and FA. The other items (Featured content ITN etc, would ramain the same, so the two tables would work together like so:

The points are awarded in the following way
Initial article assessment Complete B-Class checklist Peer review Article creation Did you know? In the news
.1 .1 1 5 5 5
Featured list Featured picture Featured sound Featured topic Good topic Article Improvement
30 35 35 10 per article in topic 5 per article in topic See other table

The feature content points are still high, just because of the hard work involved in getting anything featured. And article creating would still be 5 points because creating a stub that doesn't get deleted involves just as much work as improving an existing stub just enough to be start class. I think the first months scores will give us better ideas as to what works best. Trevor MacInnis contribs 21:00, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I like that. I've just completed a B-Class checklist on Finncomm Airlines, will I get points for that? --Plane Person (talk) 07:16, 26 August 2009 (UTC).

Sorry, just a few more days to iron out any bugs and let any stragglers sign up and we'll get started. Making the 1st of the month the start date makes it easy, and lets anyone who doesn't read this regularly get prepared. I'll be sending out a notice to all competitors soon. - Trevor MacInnis contribs 07:36, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

<=How many points is it to follow around after Italian-speaking editors who add lots of POV, inaccurate or poorly integrated text to WWII articles about military aircraft? Binksternet (talk) 08:14, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Let me get this straight, if I assess an article at the editor's request that already has a B-class checklist, I get nothing. But if that article was a start and I add the checklist, I get credit. Is that right? And as I fill out the checklist, I presume that I should upgrade the class while I'm doing it? I've already seen a fair number of stubs and starts that are really C-class. And I really dislike the fact that I can downcheck an article on citations and completeness and it will still get a C because it meets the 3 lesser requirements. Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 03:09, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Hm, that's a good question. I hadn't considered that situation. The way I designed it, the assessment point is meant to "get the ball rolling" so to speak, so that it would have some kind of assessment, and the B-class checklist is meant to clear the massive backlog of articles that are most likely C or B-class, but need the checklist. Perhaps there should be a point for participating in someone else's work. i.e a point (or fraction of) for assessing by request, participating in someone else's peer review, other project participation, etc.
As for the completing the checklist part, yes as you complete the checklist you should change/upgrade the class as well, although the checklist will do this automatically, even if you don't. Just be aware the adding the checklist to a start class article, and getting a C- class as a result is not a "Level Up" and does not garner you 5 points. I understand your concers about the grading scheme, but for now we're just following the WP:1.0 Grading Scheme- Trevor MacInnis contribs 03:25, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
You get 0.1 credit for assessing an article and filling out its B-class checklist when the checklist was not in place or not filled out. Actually improving an article is worth more points based on where it started and ended. -Fnlayson (talk) 03:15, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
Oh, I knew I didn't get any credit for up-rating an article that I haven't done any work on ;-), but I do think that there should be some sort of reward for assessing stuff, whether it be from the assessments page, peer review, etc. Problem is that it becomes a bit of a judgement call for anything other than a simple stub to B-class assessment and even for those some will be redundant to simply filling out a B-class checklist for existing stub and start articles. Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 06:14, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

What points do you get for starting a template?

Ishwasafish click here!!!

19:44, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Scoring/Logging?

Great idea Trevor, Just a bit concerned how the logging aspect works, would we have to manually submit entries? Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 23:09, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes, right now we have to manually submit entries. Each competitor has their own page at Wikipedia:WikiProject Aviation/Contest/Submissions/Nimbus227 (for example) linked to from the footer on Wikipedia:WikiProject Aviation/Contest/Submissions (the actual footer is at Wikipedia:WikiProject Aviation/Contest/Users. Each competitor lists their edits according to a specific style, laid out at Wikipedia:WikiProject Aviation/Contest/Submissions, and a reviewer (namely me for now) reviews and scores.
This is the same way of scoring the Wikipedia:WikiCup uses, except they have a bot do the scoring. I am working on getting their bot scorer to also score our game, but it probably won't get set up before we start the first round. I could also look into if it's even possible to have a bot scan a users edits and come up with a score, but I think that would be a very difficult task.
If there is an easier way you can think of doing it, I'd welcome any suggestions. - Trevor MacInnis contribs 01:57, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Trophies/Medals/Rounds and other ideas for the future

Ideas for Pools, Schedules, Playoffs, etc

I'm trying to come up with a schedule that keeps everyone (or at least the most) playing all the time, but also gets a top group split off and rewarded, but without excluding the bottom group from every catching up and winning subsequent rounds.

How about this:

After the first month, the top 10 are split into a "Premier League", and the rest into the "Champions League".

The Premier League has a playoff with the top 8 like this: (why not all 10 will make sense in a moment)

1/4finals (1 week) Semi's (1 week) Final (Cup Winner)
         
1  
8  
 
 
4  
5  
 
 
2  
7  
 
 
3  
6  

This decides the "Cup" winner. The bottom 2 in the top 10 get demoted to the "Champions" league. During the three weeks the Premier playoffs happen the Champions league go all out to see who moves up (at least 2 and 1 more "wildcard" if it outscores a Premier contestant). Or maybe the "Champions League" can have the same playoff to determine the two to move up?

After the first round starts, people can join the "Champions League" whenever they want. Comments? - Trevor MacInnis contribs 03:57, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

After sleeping on it, I don't think I like my playoff idea, it introduces problems like how to score FACs that began before the playoff and end after, and invariably some people will be knocked out and left out of playing until the next round. I think for now, until someone comes up with a better idea, we'll just go with monthly 1st, 2nd, 3rd places. - Trevor MacInnis contribs 12:58, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Medals/Awards

We need ideas for awards and medals. I like the "Cup" for the overall winner, but we could also have asilver and bronze medal, and maybe small awards for "most FA's, GA's , "most improved score" and others. Ideas? - Trevor MacInnis contribs 04:04, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I like that idea because it’s not just the winner who puts in a lot of work; those who came close should still be recognized. P.S, if you rewrite an article for the competition, where do you submit it? Thanks, --Plane Person (talk) 06:34, 25 August 2009 (UTC).

Everyone has their own page to submit their edits. Fo rexample, yours is at Wikipedia:WikiProject Aviation/Contest/Submissions/Plane Person. To see other competitors pages see the footer of Wikipedia:WikiProject Aviation/Contest/Submissions. - Trevor MacInnis contribs 13:00, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
Perhaps it would be a good idea to make a smaller silver cup for the second place, and an even smaller bronze cup for the third place. By the way, congratulations for organizing such an interesting activity; an excellent idea! --Eurocopter (talk) 08:48, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
Thanks, I'll try to find some nice images, but if anyone else has image experience I'd appreciate some help. - Trevor MacInnis contribs 13:00, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
Check out commons:Category:Wikimedia user awards. There are a lot of awards to choose from, or we can try to get one modified and made specifically for our project at Wikipedia:Graphic Lab/Image workshop. I'm looking into this now. We should also consider giving regular old barnstars for work here, i.e. Template:The WikiProject Barnstar and Template:The Writer's Barnstar- Trevor MacInnis contribs 01:58, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

How about this: For the main awards, top three finishers each month get:

  • 1st place
    1st place
  • 2nd place
    2nd place
  • 3rd place
    3rd place

These could/should be modified a bit, maybe add a plane flying around them or the Template:Wikiwings place behind them; something to differentiate our project.

For most article improvement points:Template:The Editor's Barnstar.

For most "Specialized Task of the Month" points (i.e B-class checklists added): Template:The Working Man's Barnstar

For most articles created points: Template:The Writer's Barnstar

- Trevor MacInnis contribs 02:22, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Cumulative totals

You might want to track cumulative totals for contestants, rather like MILHIST does in their contest, to help motivate the slow, but steady editors, from those people who enough work to win something one month, but nothing afterwards for months. Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 03:40, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Sounds good. - Trevor MacInnis contribs 18:36, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't understand how this works

I still do not know how to get points? --MoHasanie  Talk  16:48, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

You get points simply by editing articles. For example, from the first table, if you assess an article add a link to your edit to your submissions page, which for you is atWikipedia:WikiProject Aviation/Contest/Submissions/MoHasanie. If you improve an article, the second tble shows how many points you will get, depending on how much of an improvement you made. To claim your points add to your submissions page:
* {{la|Article name}} (Beginning class) [[links to GA/A/FA review]] (End Class)
And fill in the blanks. There is an example at the example submissions page at Wikipedia:WikiProject Aviation/Contest/Submissions Example. During the course of the month I will periodicaly check your submissions page and check your edits, giving you points. - Trevor MacInnis contribs 18:34, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Okay to create article and assess it?

Is it acceptable for the same person to create an article and then also complete the "Initial article assessment" and/or "B-Class checklist"? This topic is not covered in any of the following FAQs:

Prior to this contest I have occasionally assessed some of my own articles as Stub or Start when adding {{WPAVIATION}} to the talk page. However, I decided to leave the assessment blank for a few articles I created the other day. Since then I noticed other editors/contestants have created an article, then assessed it and added a B-class checklist. If that is okay, I will start doing it too. Thanks. -- Zyxw (talk) 23:38, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

I don't see a problem with it. - Trevor MacInnis contribs 00:01, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Elimination

Hi all, due to real-life time constraints I'm unable to continue participating in the contest. However I wish you all the best of luck! LGF1992UK (talk) 21:56, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

DYK code

Where do I get the code for the confirmed nom for a DYK? You've done it once for one of mine, but I'd just as soon do it myself. And wouldn't it just be easier to use the la|article template when listing those articles rather than essentially enter them twice so you can look at the talk page? Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 03:00, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Sure, you can use the la|article instead of the two links. And there's no "code", all I did in my edit was add a link to your edit diff when you nominated the article for DYK, thereby proving you did nominate it. Just check your contributions or the Template talk:Did you know history and add links to your nomination edits. BTW the Wikipedia:WikiProject Aviation/Contest/Submissions page suggests how all the different types of entries can be done.- Trevor MacInnis contribs 03:31, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
Ah, but that presumes that I understood what the hell diff nom, or whatever that was, actually meant. But thanks for the explanation. Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 00:02, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

What is "DYK"? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kernel.package (talk • contribs) 16:40, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Create/Level up scoring overlap

I'm beginning to see a problem. If you create a stub, you get 5 points. If you create a B-Class article you get 5 points. If you create a stub, then improve it to B-Class, you get 5pts + 21 pts = 26 points. The could be a way to game the system by creating stubs only, then improving. So I'd like to update the rules/scoring system, or lose out on points if you don't game the system. I'd like "Article creation" to be 4 points, with the assumption that you are creating a stub. If you create anything better than a stub article you get the all the "Level Up" points as well. So the new table will look like this:

Article Improvement Points (Level Up's)
Ending class
Beginning
class 		Stub Start C B GA A FA Total
Create +4 +1 +5 +10 +15 +20 +25 80
Stub +1 +5 +10 +15 +20 +25 76
Start +5 +10 +15 +20 +25 75
C +10 +15 +20 +25 70
B +15 +20 +25 65
GA +20 +25 45
A +25 25

I'll have to go over everyone's submission so far to ensure things are leveled out. If I don't get any negative feedback on this, I'll start in a few days. - Trevor MacInnis contribs 23:45, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Seems alright with me. The create & stub could be combined for 5 pt instead. -Fnlayson (talk) 00:01, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
The way I've set it up, if you create a stub, you get 4 points, if you create a start (or improve your stub to start) you get 5 points. This is mainly to keep scoring simple (multiples of 5), since most articles created are probably going to be starts, but also to favor thoughtful creations over the one sentence ones (i.e. "The Mark 5 aircraft was an aircraft. The end."). - Trevor MacInnis contribs 00:50, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
Hope this isn't getting too much work for you Trevor. I think there should be a time limit between adding B class checklists and promoting an article as I was 'hit' with this pitfall. I see B class checklist additions and concurrent promotions going on at the moment. I am a believer in not assessing any articles that I create any higher than start class, with or outwith the contest. It could be construed as the ' leaving the rat in charge of the cheese larder' syndrome, no gripes, it just has to be absolutely fair as you are noting here. Cheers Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 00:12, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
I've been doing a lot of assessing and it really bugs me that getting all the formatting stuff correct automatically gets a C-class when the information provided can be minimal and there's not a citation in sight. Formatting stuff properly is easy, but gathering and putting the information in the article is hard so I think that it's waaaay too easy to get a C-class. So I'd drop the points awarded for getting something to C down to +1 or something similar and I'd combine the create and stub as Fnlayson said. So my version would be Create/stub gets, +5, +1 for start, +1 for C, then the usual +10 for B and so on. In other words +7 for creating a C-class article, but +10 for taking an existing stub/start/C-class to B-class. Hell, if I had my druthers I'd make a yes on bullet #2 of the checklist mandatory to get a C grade. But that's just me, I'm all about information rather than form. Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 01:04, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
Response to Nimbus: there is no Wikipedia limitation to assessing your own articles up to and including B Class. I see no reason to change this ability for our contest alone. I propose instead that we each take a quick glance at other contestant creations to see if the article has been accurately assessed, and re-assess as needed, with a resultant change to the creator's earned points. Edit warring over assessments would be brought here for discussion. Binksternet (talk) 19:12, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
Sure, it's just the way I prefer to do it, in theory I could lose potential points for sticking to the principle. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 21:09, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
I'm fine with the scoring change. Beware that assessment of new articles is now a requirement to determine the score for the article. Thanks for organizing this Trevor; it's a good competition. - Canglesea (talk) 00:29, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

OK, when I make the change, I'll also add to/amend the rules:

  • To receive points for Article Improvement (Level Up's), the article must have been recently assessed with a B-Class Checklist completed prior to your article improvements. This determines beginning Class. In other words, points are given for improving the article, which results in a change in Class, not for simply adding the checklist or changing the Class to suit the current article state. (Note: Exceptions to this rule are articles above B-Class; these have individual review processes which determine Class and do not require the checklist.)
  • To receive points for Article Creation, assessments above Start-Class must be completed by another user, and not the article creator.

Sound good? - Trevor MacInnis contribs 00:50, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Looks good to me :). Airplaneman talk 00:59, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
Since you explicitly said otherwise earlier, that's gonna create a problem in that some people have already self-assessed some C and B-class articles. But I guess you can go in and see if you agree with their assessments. But I do agree that I'm uncomfortable in allowing people to self-assess B-class articles and that this would be good thing to do in general. Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 01:08, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
Yeah, I'm going to have to go over everything anyways, so I'll just quickly check that the assessments were accurate. If some self editing does take place, I don't have a big problem with it, as long as people are honest about it. - Trevor MacInnis contribs 01:14, 6 September 2009 (UTC)- Trevor MacInnis contribs 01:14, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Heh... Ummm... I know this sounds like I don't have a clue, but how exactly do you assess articles?Airplaneman talk 01:01, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Check out Wikipedia:WikiProject Aviation/Assessment for an overview. It basically means adding a class to the project banner on the talk page, based on the quality of the article. - Trevor MacInnis contribs 01:12, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm going to go ahead and make this change, with one more amendment. I'm going to make "create" +1 pt, and stub to start +4 points. This keeps it in line with the steady increasing points system, and promotes creation of starts over stubs. - Trevor MacInnis contribs 22:09, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

This does then mean that there's going to be a large number of articles submitted for assessment so we're all going to have to work together to keep these at a manageable level. The occasional drop-by assessment from somebody from MILHIST or wherever isn't going to help much, if any.Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 22:39, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

I think it's perfectly fine if you add a checklist to an article you plan to edit, as long as you add it before you start your major edits. The problems come in when you improve an article tagged stub, but which may have actually been a start, and then add a checklist upping it to C or B. And it's also fine to add a checklist to any article you have already edited, as long as it doesn't reach C-Class or higher. If you work on a stub, improve it to start, and add a checklist to confirm its a start, then I think your safe from being accused of stealing points. - Trevor MacInnis contribs 01:43, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm seeing a lot of great content improvements from our contestants, hopefully some of which was been spurned on by this contest. One of the main goals I hoped to accomplish with this is the increase in featured content comping out of our projects. I have seen some work that may move in that direction, but nothing overt yet. Perhaps it would spark more of an interest if getting 1 or 2 articles or lists or images featured would bring a contestants score up more into contention with those who create or improve many different articles. What if the last level up "A to FA" was +50 or +100 instead of +25. What if getting an image or list etc. featured was +100? - Trevor MacInnis contribs 03:06, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Trevor, I believe the scale for level ups should be steeper than it is now, to encourage people to develop quality contents. I guess the question is "do we want quality or quantity?" I have noticed a lot of articles that got level up's scores are new articles about airports, are these airports notable? If so, why weren't they there before the Contest? Additionally, if they're notable, is there any reason why most of them are still sitting in C-class and not developed further to get higher classes? Aviator006 (talk) 06:56, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
Looks good to me. Whatever Trevor decides. BTW good work, Trevor! Antonio I love to Fly and it Shows Martin08:17, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
As I've said before, a C-class is too easy to get. Fill out some specifications, make an infobox, maybe get a picture, write a one sentence lead and a three sentence main body and Bob's your uncle! Take about an hour, tops, depending how many specifications you need to transcribe and how handy your sources are. But it's usually a good 3-4 hours for me to to take a C to B and that's if the topic wasn't extensive. I worked for a while on the DB-3 article, but gave up the effort when I realized that I'd have to read a lot of accounts of the early days of Barbarossa and the Winter War to fill out the details for the operational use section and I'd have to reconcile differing accounts and even nomenclature issues. And upgrading an article on any popular or widely-used aircraft to B-class could easily take a week, even if you have the sources on hand. Easier to create some missing or upgrade low-quality articles on various prototypes and get them up to B-class as a more effective use of my time. I like how MILHIST works its contest. They give a point for start, and since they don't have C-class there, that's the equivalent our C-class, and five points for B-class. I'm not sure if I agree on their policy about giving no points for GA, but I can understand why since a well-written B-class will sail through GA. B to A-class gets ten points, but A to FA also gets nothing. I've never taken anything to FA so I have no idea if it's really anything more than MOS stuff generally so, again, I'm not sure if I agree with that either. To sum up I'm not sure if we need to increase the award for GA, A and FA, but I do think that we need to less the award for C-class if we want to go for quality over quantity. Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 07:31, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

First off, I would like to thank all of you who are taking part right now, and I apologize for how things (rules) seem to be constantly changing, but I guess that's the price we pay for being "early adopters".

Re: Sturmvogel 66's comments: All good points. I've been wary of reducing the value of C-Class because I don't want to devalue anyone's work so far, but going over peoples submissions and thinking about the amount of work editors place in certain areas, I am more inclined to agree that placing more points in the higher levels (or less in the lower levels) would promote quality over quantity.

What if we slightly reduced the score for lower levels, and increase score for higher levels. Essentially each level up is worth double the previous. Creating a stub or start is worth a total of 1 or 2, a C-Class is 5, B is 10, GA is 20, A is 40 and FA is worth a total of 80 points. So then getting an article from C to B would be worth 5 points, or just as much as creating a C-Class article, and getting an article from B to GA would be worth 10 points, or just as much as creating a B-Class article. And then Finally gettingan article from A to FA would be worth 40 points, or equal to creating 8 C-Class or 4 B-Class articles.

Article Improvement Points (Level Up's)
Ending class
Beginning
class 		Stub Start C B GA A FA Total
Create +1 +1 +3 +5 +10 +20 +40 80
Stub +1 +3 +5 +10 +20 +40 79
Start +3 +5 +10 +20 +40 78
C +5 +10 +20 +40 75
B +10 +20 +40 70
GA +20 +40 60
A +40 40

I think if we do this, the current points leaders will still be leading, but others may be more inclined to edit and improve "quality", in order to compete with the "quantity". - Trevor MacInnis contribs 18:01, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

You've definitely increased the attractiveness of promotions past B, but I don't think that you've hammered C-class enough. I really think that it ought to reflect the amount of time required to create/upgrade. A C-class takes me about an hour, but a B-class can easily take 2-3 times as long, or more if it's a very general article, just to do the required reading. So I can spend 10 hours and get 50 points with 10 C-class, or I can spend 10 hours and get 40 points with 4 upgrades from C to B, but only if I carefully choose articles that are limited in scope to a single prototype or something. If I were to try to upgrade, say the MiG-15 article, from C to B it could easily take a solid week or more to try and track down all the foreign operators, combat history, etc. Now I realize that we can't objectively award extra points for large-scale articles, but the time requirements are such that people are discouraged from even attempting them while C-class articles can be churned out so much more easily. Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 20:18, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
I think both Sturmvogel and I share the same view, the amount of points being rewarded between C-class and GA-class are still unproportional to the amount of work it is required to get an article to those status. It is easy to write an article from scratch to get it up to C-class, because you have the flexibility and freedom to write literally anything you want on a blank page, from the sources you have. However, to come along and try to upgrade an existing C-class or B-class article to GA-class or above that you might or might not have involvement in, you have to sift through and find a source to cite it, or fix deadlinks, or re-paragraph single sentences, it is far more involved to get it to quality. Aviator006 (talk) 04:11, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
I've really been back and forth over this, and I think that I now agree with Sturmvogel 66. Creating a C-Class article, according to our checklist, is much easier than I once believed, and the "quality" of a C-Class article (and time and work needed to create one) is often much less than a B-class article. So I've finally decided on a scorecard, which I'm going to implement immediately, and review everyone's submissions again, redoing the scores as necessary. You can see the main contest page for the new scores. I find myself dedicating far too much time to changing things here, so I'm going to leave the scoring for the rest of this month and, unless there are objections, for the following month/round as well. We'll see how things work out.- Trevor MacInnis contribs 00:11, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
  • That should be fine. It's already the middle of the month. Go with these changes and tweak before the next round it really needed. Besides this round is laying the foundation for later. -Fnlayson (talk) 00:34, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Initial Assessment points still available

Good work everyone on cleaning out the unassessed articles category! If anyone's looking to find more articles in need of assessment, I'd check out User:AlexNewArtBot/aeronewSearchResult and User:AlexNewArtBot/AirlinesSearchResult and their archives. Also Category:Aviation. Just a quick look through the categories I was able to find the untagged article Tacco. - Trevor MacInnis contribs 05:27, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Also Category:Unassessed aviation articles. There are links to a similar category for each task force in the table at WP:WikiProject Aviation/Maintenance. There has to be aviation related articles without the Aviation banner also. -Fnlayson (talk) 05:41, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Lists/Templates

How should we score creating lists and templates? Templates and Lists aren't assessed, but lists can be considered stubs or featured. - Trevor MacInnis contribs 05:19, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Was there ever a solution to this? If you create a list/template, I propose it be worth 2 points, the same as creating an article and getting it to start class. Does that seem reasonable? -SidewinderX (talk) 13:23, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Maintenance points

Since the unassessed article category is currently empty, and since I've previously mentioned rotating the maintenance points section, next month I'm going to change the "Initial article assessment" points (0.1) to "Add infobox" from Category:Aviation articles needing infoboxes. - Trevor MacInnis contribs 05:24, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

How about lumping those and maybe similar tasks in a maintenance section? -Fnlayson (talk) 17:52, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
Not a bad idea, but we're going to need to clarify just how it works when somebody upgrades a stub or start article without an infobox to B/C-class. Does he get credit for adding an infobox in addition to the upgrade points or is it taken for granted as part of the upgrade necessary to get it to B or C-class? Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 08:55, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
I don't see a big problem if you get an extra .1 when improving an article, it probably won't affect the outcome of who gets the most points. - Trevor MacInnis contribs 00:32, 29 September 2009 (UTC) Actually I do see a problem now. If you add an infobox, an image, and specifications, they extra points may be of consequence. So I think the rule should be "These points are not for improving articles you recently created, but for clearing the backlog of the related categories."- Trevor MacInnis contribs 02:43, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
How about a section titled Maintenance, which will include:
Navbox templates? They take quite a bit of effort. Complete specification sections for tagged articles? Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 22:15, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
True, the creation of a navbox takes work, but I'd consider scoring that as an article created (see section above). I like the specs idea. I'll add Category:Aircraft without specifications and Category:Aircraft engines without specifications to the list. - Trevor MacInnis contribs 23:33, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
It would be good to add something for articles needing attention, mainly ones with multiple cite and verification tags like the top ones on the WP:Aviation Cleanup listing. However, points for this could be gamed by simply removing all tagged sentences without trying to cite them. Something to consider for the future maybe. -Fnlayson (talk) 04:12, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Initial vs. B-Class assessment

Sorry this is a bit late in the day, and I hope I'm not bringing up something already discussed (couldn't spot anything above), but it seems a bit odd to me that initial assessments and completing B-Class checklists receive identical points (0.1). There's a bit more involved in doing the B-Class checklist compared to an initial stub/start assessment (assuming I understand what's meant by 'initial assessment' of course!) so I'd have thought at least 0.2 points made sense for B-Class checklisting. Otherwise we may as well not make the differentiation. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:30, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

I don't really see much of a difference between an initial assessment and a B-class checklist completion. They both involve reading over an article and giving an assessment. Perhaps the B-class checklist points should just be included in the (new) "maintenance section. - Trevor MacInnis contribs 02:33, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
Well I guess that was the point, in a way. Either they were considered different enough to justify a difference in points, or they were considered the same in terms of effort, therefore they may as well be combined. We've now effectively done the latter by means of the new maintence section, so that's cool by me. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 01:54, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

(undent) A semi-related question... is there any credit for re-assessing an article that was seemingly overasessed? The P-1 Hawk article was very messy IMO, and didn't meet the B-class organization criteria. I dropped it down to a C-class (in part in the hope that someone with a bit of expertise in that aircraft will clean it up). Is that something I should record for the contest, or just chalk it up as a good deed for the project? -SidewinderX (talk) 20:58, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Enter articles you work on to your submissions page.

Assuming I understand what I've read (everything) I won't have a "submissions page" until I enter the contest. Before I enter I'm considering what I will need to do. How do I "Enter articles [I] work on to [my] submissions page."? Do I "create" text as I would on any Wiki page? Kernel.package (talk) 16:39, 1 October 2009

Exactly, just edit tha page as you would any other. At the most basic level you can just add a link to the article you edited, and other pertinent information. Wikipedia:WikiProject Aviation/Contest/Submissions shows examples. - Trevor MacInnis contribs 01:40, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Frequeries

What is this: "Frequeries"? Is it a list of questions and answers -- something that a "FAQ" is not? Kernel.package (talk) 16:44, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

The SineBot moves faster than the server. I clicked to edit this, so I could add the signature immediately after submitting the content for which the signature should have been included. The Sinebot had skipped over the sub-title above (that was also in need of a signature), then flagged this one and inserted the sig. If the Sinebot is capable of adding a signature, and capable of contributing to a "conflict", why isn't it simply used to sign in my stead? It certainly isn't my "equal" or my proxy. If it is given an equivalent level of authority to sign on my behalf (without first obtaining confirmation from me that it was, indeed me), then it ought to be relegated to the task of signing what I write (at its will) so two "people" aren't adding the same (identical) text. This would also remove the potential for "Conflicts".

Is there a way for me to do this in my preferences? Kernel.package (talk) 17:01, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Just add 4 tildas (~~~~) after your post and before you save. There's also a sign button on the toolbar above the edit screen that add the tildas. -Fnlayson (talk) 17:06, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

The winning combination vs. the whole point

It's clear from looking at the high scorers that new article creation combined with Did You Know entries is the winning strategy. Creating a string of B-Class articles puts the contestant ahead of the pack, and the DYKs tip the scale.

This is the exact strategy I envisioned for myself when the contest started, and it served very well for a handful contestants who were able to devote more time to the contest than I.

However, if the goal of the contest is to clean up existing articles and make the Aviation project better organized, the scoring should be reassessed so that cleanup activities are worth more. What about all the fact tags out there? What about the orphaned articles and the stubs? What about organizing articles in categories, and adding categories? Binksternet (talk) 17:15, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

I agree there should be points for more maintenance items. I've recently changed the scoring for assessment/B-class checklist to "Maintenance", which encompasses a variety of tasks. Other tasks can be added to this section, if you have a scpecific maintenance category that has a backlog needing clearing, please let me know. - Trevor MacInnis contribs 01:31, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
Personally (I came in third this month with Binksternet's described stategy), I can't bother to make a list of every time I assessed an article, filled out a B-list or add a category or navbox to an article. That means that I use twice the time to do maintenance than otherwise. Then again, getting an article from nothing to C is worth very little—the work to an article is getting it up to B. And this is mostly done by adding references and cleaning up/copyediting. As for DYK, I agree that they encourage expansion of small articles or creation of new ones. But I would like to point out one other area where many points can be scored, and that is with good article nominations. Ten points for getting past WP:GAN is actually worth as much as getting an article to B plus a DYK, and probably takes less work. Personally, I think that GA is the "ideal" level to mass produce articles—the time used to get a B-class article to GA is little, but from GA to FA it is quite extensive. Readers will look at GA articles as professional, due in part to the "balance" in the article; FA is just overkill. Arsenikk (talk) 13:54, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
I got nearly a fifth of my points from assessments; if you choose not to record them then you're just conceding those points to everybody else. I just opened up a tab for my submission page and copied over the article titles as I dealt with them. Personally I think my winning strategy was to focus on short articles that could easily be written to B-class standards as opposed to larger-scale articles which would require much more time and effort to bring up to speed. As I see it the problem with a GA strategy is that of time; some GA-nominated articles have waited for months for somebody to clear them and look at the current backlog. And I'm not persuaded that a C-class strategy still isn't the best way to go with the current values. 3 points for an infobox, picture, and a couple paragraphs of text that takes less than a half-hour to type up is better than the 5-8 received for creating or upgrading an article to B-class in 2-4 hours.Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 15:00, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
Sturmvogel has a lot of wise advice. However, the backlog of aviation articles at GAN is very short. Today I reviewed an article that was nominated today, and there are also other people who have been reviewing. I have no problems reviewing most of the aviation articles there fairly quickly, unless of course the nominations reach an article of day. But it is true that some articles, like US highways, have a huge backlog. Arsenikk (talk) 15:20, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
I was thinking more of the MILHIST GA backlog, which is where I spend more of my time. Sorry for the confusion. Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 15:35, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
Don't forget that even if your GA nom isn't finished in the current month, whenever (and if) it does pass it will count for points in the next month. - Trevor MacInnis contribs 17:46, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
True, but it can be a problem when you're trying to maximize points in a given month. --Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 17:51, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
Sturmvogel's idea of a C-class strategy could work quite well, but it once again brings up the question of what the contest is designed to do for the Aviation WikiProject. Are we here to add more articles to the periphery of the subject or are we here to increase the scholarship and interconnectedness of the aviation articles that are already here? Binksternet (talk) 14:40, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

To take up a slight deviation, I notice that there is rewarded a point for completing a peer review. Could there also be rewarded points for GA reviews? It can take up to an hour to read, comment, put on hold, come back, look over again and then pass a GAN, and it would be a little more rewarding if reviewers got points for that too. I would have said a review was worth maybe 2 points, but I am a bit uncertain. It takes less time than improving an article to B-class, but about the same time as creating a DYK, and perhaps a quarter of the time as actually improving a B-class article to GA-class. I know everyone is thinking of the craziest things to create points for the sort of things they do, and I am most probably the person who would gain the most from this point-wise, although it would mean more other people get their GAs passed, and then I would "loose" on it. Anyway, I'm here to make a better encyclopedia, not win some fancy medals, even though the competition is fun ;) Arsenikk (talk) 12:59, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Acronyms

Since the name of the article is often indicative of content, can the article name be used where URL basenames are shown (see Contest Rules)? For example, these are used: WP:FAC, WP:GAN, WP:PR/WP:AVR#PEER but their meaning is not clear. Requesting the entire page for each 1) seems like a waste of server bandwidth if all I need is the page title, and 2) takes a prohibitive amount of time (which appears as an issue unique to Wikipedia servers).

The speed at which pages are served is fundamental to my ability to contribute. (Since I can only speak for myself, I've done so, but I do imagine this is an issue for others, too).

The point is: Acronyms are easy to type but difficult to understand unless their use is defined where they are used. In written text, this usually occurs on one page, in one chapter, but using a genuine textbook and using its included Index to locate the definition of a term often requires less time than waiting for a page to getm served. Kernel.package (talk) 17:16, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Done. I replaced the shortcuts with full article names. Binksternet (talk) 17:24, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

The opposite of "orphaned article": a well connected article

Can there be any extra point or fraction of a point made available for articles that have been given more than 50 new article links as seen in "what links here" off to the left of the article? This is very difficult to track for existing articles that the contestant has improved (there's no history kept), but for new articles it would be obvious. For instance, the new article Nordic Air links to only two other articles, Geneva, Ohio and North Flying, so it would not get extra points. The new article Air-sea rescue links to somewhere between 100 and 200 other articles, so it would get the extra points or fractions of a point. Rewarding such connectedness would reward the contestant who creates pivotal infill articles rather than fringe and border articles which add to the burden of Wikipedia:WikiProject Orphanage. Binksternet (talk) 17:41, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

It would be very difficult to assess how the links to the article have been increased. In some cases it would be by creating an article that is linked to in a footer template, which could link it to hundreds of articles immediately, for other it would be by manual linking only. Right now I don't see a way of scoring this. - Trevor MacInnis contribs 01:34, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
Ah, I forgot about templates that provide instant linking. That brings up another thought: contest points for new templates, or template improvement. Binksternet (talk) 02:40, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

First Round Results

Here are the results for the first round.

Contest leaders

The top three finishers in the September round are:

1st
  1. Colorado Sturmvogel_66 (204.3 points)
2nd
  1. Bulgaria Zyxw (142.3 points)
3rd
  1. Norway Arsenikk (131 points)
Notable mentions
  1. Hong Kong Aviator006 (83.4) collected 5 GAs
  2. Republic of California Binksternet (70.1) collected 6 DYKs
  3. Wales Canglesea (92) and England Nimbus227 (86.1) each created 25 articles
  4. Australia Ian Rose (83.6) created 1 FA and 1 GA
The three most-viewed DYK entries in September were
  1. Amphibious helicopter by Binksternet with 11,000 views
  2. Dumbo (air-sea rescue) by Binksternet with 10,800 views
  3. Aerial torpedo by Binksternet with 10,400 views
Content Leaders

As of this update, the following is a list of participants with the most:

At a Glance

The Contest participants have collected a Round 1 total of:

Congratulations to all competitors. - Trevor MacInnis contribs 06:38, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Created Redirect?

Quick question about scoring/accounting. I recently "created" a page that was on the missing articles list (the Curtiss XP-21), which is really just a redirect to the article that it is a variant of. Now I also added a couple of sentences to that article to describe the XP-21, but that addition really isn't enough to say that I "improved" the original article. That said, I did turn a red link into a proper blue link... is that worth anything? -SidewinderX (talk) 20:50, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Creating redirects to turn red links blue, while a noble endeavor, is not sufficient in itself to raise an article to the next level to earn points in this contest. Rest assured, though, aviation readers appreciate the effort. -Canglesea (talk) 13:58, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

October Results

The Aviation WikiProject Contest Newsletter
Issue 1 - October 2009

Contest leaders

Here are the results for the second round of the Aviation Contest. Remember, the contest is ongoing and you can sign up at any time.

Contest leaders

The top three finishers in the October round are:

1st
  1. Colorado Sturmvogel_66 (185.7 points)
2nd
  1. Bulgaria Zyxw (150.8 points)
3rd
  1. Australia Ian Rose (131 points)
Notable mentions
  1. England Nimbus227 powered into 4th place with 130.3 points including 1 FA
  2. Aeroflot Russavia (20) collected 4 DYKs
  3. Wales Canglesea (36.7) assessed or checklisted 267 articles
  4. Australia Ian Rose (83.6) created 1 FA and 1 GA
  5. Virginia SidewinderX (32.7) created 9 articles and Saudi Arabia petebutt (62) created 8 articles
Content Leaders

As of this update, the following is a list of participants with the most:

At a Glance

The Contest participants have collected an October total of:

This combines with the September totals to make a grand total of:

Congratulations to all competitors! Another successful round, let's try to build on it! - Trevor MacInnis contribs 03:37, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

October Contest Results

The Aviation WikiProject Contest Newsletter
Issue 1 - October 2009

Contest leaders

Here are the results for the second round of the Aviation Contest. Remember, the contest is ongoing and you can sign up at any time.

Contest leaders

The top three finishers in the October round are:

1st
  1. Colorado Sturmvogel_66 (185.7 points)
2nd
  1. Bulgaria Zyxw (150.8 points)
3rd
  1. Australia Ian Rose (131 points)
Notable mentions
  1. England Nimbus227 powered into 4th place with 130.3 points including 1 FA
  2. Aeroflot Russavia (20) collected 4 DYKs
  3. Wales Canglesea (36.7) assessed or checklisted 267 articles
  4. Australia Ian Rose (83.6) created 1 FA and 1 GA
  5. Virginia SidewinderX (32.7) created 9 articles and Saudi Arabia petebutt (62) created 8 articles
The most-viewed DYK entry in October was
Content Leaders

As of this update, the following is a list of participants with the most:

At a Glance

The Contest participants have collected an October total of:

This combines with the September totals to make a grand total of:

Congratulations to all competitors! Another successful round, let's try to build on it! - Trevor MacInnis contribs 03:37, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Templates

Can we count created templates under the articles created heading of submissions? Ex -- I created a footer nav template for commercial aviation accidents in 1970. --Mûĸĸâĸûĸâĸû 08:28, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Sure. it hasn't been written into the rules, but I've been scoring templates and lists as 1 point. - Trevor MacInnis contribs 04:01, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Outdated banner?

So maybe no-one's gotten around to updating it yet, but that green banner at the top of the contest pages reads: The fourth round begins in 26 days, on 1 December 2009 T 00:00 UTC! The current date and time is 5 December 2009 T 04:31 UTC. I think stared at it for a good minute in confusion. --Mûĸĸâĸûĸâĸû 04:33, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

No, I haven't gotten around to updating that yet. i still have to do the final scores for last month too. If anyone want to help please do. - Trevor MacInnis contribs 07:49, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
Just scored Sturmvogel except for a single entry in his Creation/Improvement section -- what do I do about an A-class review that is still onging? --Mûĸĸâĸûĸâĸû 21:11, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
Ongoing reviews don't get scored for the old round, but when they pass the points are awarded in whatever round is current ongoing. - Trevor MacInnis contribs 18:45, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

November Contest Results

The Aviation WikiProject Contest Newsletter
Issue II - November 2009

Contest leaders

Here are the results for the third round of the Aviation Contest. Remember, the contest is ongoing and you can sign up at any time.

Contest leaders

The top three finishers in the November round are:

1st
  1. Colorado Sturmvogel_66 (225 points) including 55 maintenance points (550 edits!), 1 GA, and 11 DYKs
2nd
  1. Republic of California Binksternet (195.1 points) including 15 articles created (14 B-Class!) and 16 DYKs
3rd
  1. Australia Ian Rose (126 points) incuding 1 FA and 5 GAs
Notable mentions
  1. Bulgaria Zyxw powered into 4th place with 113.9 points including 23 articles created
  2. England Nimbus227 (70) and New York (state) SynergyStar (40) each collected 1 FA
  3. Norway Arsenikk (40) collected 4 GAs
  4. Aeroflot Russavia (51.3) and Oppland Geschichte (24.4) collected 6 and 3 DYKs, respectively
  5. Poland Mukkakukaku (31.4) collected 1 GA and led with 2 Peer Reviews
The three most-viewed DYK entries in November were
  1. Aircraft camouflage by Binksternet with 27,400 views
  2. Pokémon Jet by Russavia with 11,700 views
  3. Lozenge camouflage by Binksternet with 9,400 views
Content Leaders

As of this update, the following is a list of participants with the most:

At a Glance

The Contest participants have collected a November total of:

This combines with the September and October totals to make a grand total of:

A few notes for the December round:

  1. There are several editors which signed up to the contest but haven't made a submission in the 3+ months of the contest. I'm going to remove them from the scoreboard, but if they want to be put back in, just drop me a line.
  2. The "In the news" item has yet to be used, and I think with the limited scope of this contest it may not be usefull, so I'm going to remove it. If anyone has suggestions for other scoring issues, please bring it up at the contest talk page.
  3. Sorry about how late this round-up is, but I got a little burnt out this month. I could use some help in scoring if anyone want to volunteer, and I'm thinking of implementing self scoring, with me just reviewing for scoring errors. (This wouldn't be in the current round, and probably not the next, but soon.)

Again, congratulations to all competitors! Our most successful round yet, let's try to build on it!- Trevor MacInnis contribs 19:33, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Aviation/Contest/Archive_1&oldid=1144165846"