Judges talk:Contest

Deliberations, elections, and other "judicial" business shall take place here.--TerryH^Talk 13:37, 9 July 2007 (EDT)

Status
Judges, Active:3
Majority:2

Archives:1

Roll call

First order of business: the calling of a roll. All judges should come to this page and watch it. Please leave your signature.--TerryH^Talk 13:38, 9 July 2007 (EDT)

Present Geo.Complain! 14:57, 9 July 2007 (EDT)

Here Ĥøĵĭmåçħôńğ^talk 17:34, 9 July 2007 (EDT)

Rules

We only have 6.5 hours before the contest starts, and as judges, I think we are responsible for coming up with some rules, such as what constitutes a "quality" article or "quality" edit. My proposals follow:

• A "quality article" includes at least two full-length paragraph, three relevant citations, and more in-depth content than just a stub. In the case of a dispute, the inclusion/lack of an image can be used as a deciding factor.
• A "quality edit" to an existing article includes at least two extra sentences, an additional reference, and the inclusion of an important or relevant fact.

Feel free to revise as you see fit, this shouldn't be all that hard. --Ĥøĵĭmåçħôńğ^talk 17:33, 9 July 2007 (EDT)

Hoji, I like your criteria. But to this I would like to add:

1. One point of extra credit for having more than, say, six relevant citations.
2. One point of extra credit for enclosing the citations in ref tags and including the references tag to define a reference section.
3. Two points of extra credit for submitting an article well-organized into sections.
4. One point of extra credit for breaking an existing article into logical sections if it didn't already have any.
5. A new article should be eligible for all forms of credit that can attach to an article--thus, submitting a quality new page with categorization should rate eleven points--ten for the article and one for the cat tag.--TerryH^Talk 23:02, 9 July 2007 (EDT)

Good Idea Geo.Complain! 03:00, 10 July 2007 (EDT)

I like your ideas, Terry. Shall we forward these proposals to Andy, or do we not need his approval? --Ĥøĵĭmåçħôńğ^talk 12:25, 10 July 2007 (EDT)

We're the judges, and Andy has in fact joined one of the teams. Therefore, what we say--or rather, how we rule--goes.--TerryH^Talk 12:33, 10 July 2007 (EDT)

Terry, since you and I agree, we can now codify. Geo, if you would like to make an argument or revision to these clarifications, please post here. I will add these decisions to the contest page. --Ĥøĵĭmåçħôńğ^talk 20:50, 10 July 2007 (EDT)

I would post quality guidelines separately from EC. Hoji, yours is perfect as is. Post it. Terry's can be added to Criteria as is as well. Geo.Complain! 00:30, 11 July 2007 (EDT)

Points

As judges, are we required to make a record of every single edit made by all of the users over the course of this week? I thought that was what private record pages for each individual were for. As judges, our responsibility is more concerned with issues like Conservative's edits, and resolving disputes, correct? I think it is time to start enforcing the private record sheets, and make sure that every contestant is keeping track of their own edits. Is this view of our responsibilities accurate? --Ĥøĵĭmåçħôńğ^talk 20:35, 10 July 2007 (EDT)

Team One has certainly set the precedent for keeping records. As to Team Two, the only records I have seen, are Andrew's! We should publish to the main contest page right now our observation that the private record sheets are incomplete--or, if our chief deems it necessary, go to each and every contestant's talk page and remind them.--TerryH^Talk 22:20, 10 July 2007 (EDT)

Lets ask them on their talk pages. Maybe there is a reason. Geo.Complain! 00:26, 11 July 2007 (EDT)

Records

Fellow Judges:

I have seen two disturbing trends in the contestants' records:

1. Some contestants are merely reporting totals. They need to furnish harder evidence than that, in the form of links to their articles, so that we can spot-check and verify them.

1. Team Two is very slow in producing their records! Team One is on the stick, thanks to their excellent captain. But someone needs to suggest to Captain SharonS of Team Two that part of being a captain is making sure that all members of her team are in compliance.--TerryH^Talk 22:30, 10 July 2007 (EDT)

Uploads

Joaquin has asked about credit for uploads. How should we respond? Geo.Complain! 00:31, 11 July 2007 (EDT)

By awarding separate point totals for images, these being the same as for edits. Any image would get two points, and if the image is of exceptional quality--unusually striking, or an original graphic that obviously took a lot of the submitter's time and effort to produce--then it gets six.--TerryH^Talk 07:54, 11 July 2007 (EDT)

I agree with your scoring system, Terry. However, I would want there to be a provision that safeguarded against mass-uploads - say, the image must be included in an article (and be relevant!) to count for points. --Ĥøĵĭmåçħôńğ^talk 11:45, 11 July 2007 (EDT)

Welcoming

A semi neutral third party has pointed out that people are welcoming users before blocking them. (See User:Thisiteisasham for example) Thoughts? Geo.Complain! 00:33, 11 July 2007 (EDT)

I would still grant them the points. The welcome-wagon template contains ample warnings, or at least links to warnings, against unacceptable behavior. If someone gets blocked right away, then let no one say that we didn't warn them.

I would not apply this to a user who chooses a name that he ought to know is blatantly obscene. Welcoming such a user is not appropriate and we ought not grant credit for it.--TerryH^Talk 07:55, 11 July 2007 (EDT)

When a username merits an immediate block, the welcoming of that user shall not count for any points. Or something a little more judicial-sounding. --Ĥøĵĭmåçħôńğ^talk 11:47, 11 July 2007 (EDT)

Support as is Geo.Complain! 13:56, 11 July 2007 (EDT)