Changes

Judges talk:Contest (view source)

Revision as of 19:14, July 11, 2007

3,025 bytes removed , 19:14, July 11, 2007

no edit summary

Line 14: Line 14:

:Present [[User_talk:Geo.plrd|Geo.]][[User_talk:Geo.plrd|Complain!]] 14:57, 9 July 2007 (EDT)

:Here [[User:Hojimachong|'''Ĥøĵĭmåçħôńğ''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|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. --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Ĥøĵĭmåçħôńğ''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 17:33, 9 July 2007 (EDT)

−

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

−

~~:# One point of extra credit for having more than, say, six relevant citations.~~

−

~~:# One point of extra credit for enclosing the citations in ref tags and including the references tag to define a reference section.~~

−

~~:# Two points of extra credit for submitting an article well-organized into sections.~~

−

~~:# One point of extra credit for breaking an existing article into logical sections if it didn't already have any.~~

−

:# 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.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]][[User talk:TerryH|Talk]] 23:02, 9 July 2007 (EDT)

−

~~:Good Idea [[User_talk:Geo.plrd|Geo.]][[User_talk:Geo.plrd|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? --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Ĥøĵĭmåçħôńğ''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|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.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]][[User talk: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. --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Ĥøĵĭmåçħôńğ''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|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. [[User_talk:Geo.plrd|Geo.]][[User_talk:Geo.plrd|Complain!]] 00:30, 11 July 2007 (EDT)

−

~~:Archiving [[User_talk:Geo.plrd|Geo.]][[User_talk:Geo.plrd|Complain!]] 13:59, 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? --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Ĥøĵĭmåçħôńğ''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 20:35, 10 July 2007 (EDT)

Geo.plrd

3,101

edits