Wikipedia:The Core Contest/Entries

• See archives of past competition for inspiration: 2007, 2012a, 2012b, 2013, 2014, 2015, 2017, 2021, 2022, 2023, 2024.

The contest lasts for six weeks, from April 15 to May 31 this year. Editors usually nominate the articles they plan to work on at the start. This helps others know which articles are being worked on and allows editors time to gather sources like books or papers. However, it's also okay to nominate articles after the contest starts. Editors can submit improved articles anytime during the contest.

After the six weeks, judges will review the entries and announce the winners within two or three weeks. Other editors can also comment on the entries. The potential article pool includes vital and other core articles. Editors are welcome to improve and nominate any broad or important article not on the list if they explain why their article should be considered. When you submit an article you improved for the contest, please list a specific revision that you're happy with, as well as a link to the revision on which you built your improvements. For example, this diff would show improvements made to the article Lebensraum, and this shows the initial state. Only edits made during the contest period may be included in the diff link.

List of contest entries

List here articles submitted, and the diffs showing the improvement. Multiple segments are allowed to clarify the diffs submitted by a particular editor in a busy article. Co-submissions are allowed. Judges will comment on entries immediately below them, clarify benefits gained and offer feedback on what else needs to be done. Within two weeks of the conclusion, prizewinners will be announced. An example of how to lay out a sample entry as follows.

A very core example

• Nominator:
• Improvements: (start state + improvement diff)
• Comments:

Writing

• Nominator: Remsense
• Improvements: (start state + improvement diff)
• Comments: 2, presently  – I burned out last year chipping away at Classical Chinese, as it was ultimately too difficult to really get comfortable with the whole body of RS I wanted to use. For this though, I've basically been knee-deep in research by way of sub-articles (History of writing and Writing system, among others) for a year-plus. I'm very confident TCC is coming up at the right time to serve as a push toward getting this big project I've tasked myself with accomplished – and a Vital level-2 FA secured under my belt.

The arts

• Nominator: HKLionel
• Improvements: (start state + improvement diff)
• Comments: L1

Comments by judges

Aah yeah! A VIT1 article. Many kudos (is that something people still say?). For Remsense, collaborations are allowed in TCC, because they're fun, so you would score "points" for helping out if that's okay with HKLionel. In terms of the article, the first paragraph is a bit too difficult, and you may be able to WP:EXPLAINLEAD more effectively (diverse and plural?). Overall, the lead is written quite flowery, which might be self-referential? The prose is more difficult than need be, if we imagine teenagers reading this for instance. Typically we don't use words like WP:OUR in prose. The history starts with the Greeks, which might be a Western bias? All in all: definitely room for improvement during the contest. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 20:07, 7 April 2025 (UTC)

Comments by others

• I knew I was going to get one-upped by someone taking either The arts or Technology, but I didn't think it would be immediately. Best of luck with this, wow! Remsense ‥ 论 18:28, 6 April 2025 (UTC)

  Cheers mate, I'm just trying to do my best :) unfortunately don't have quite a lot of experience as you can see but oh well it's lio! | talk | work 02:24, 7 April 2025 (UTC)

  This also goes for everyone else entering, even though they presently have much more experience than I in the FA business—but I'd love to help out on this, to the extent it doesn't gum up the works given this is technically a competition. Remsense ‥ 论 02:31, 7 April 2025 (UTC)

  Alright :) it's lio! | talk | work 02:35, 7 April 2025 (UTC)

Mongol Empire

• Nominator: AirshipJungleman29
• Improvements: (start state + improvement diff)
• Comments: Vital-3, C-class, 1.6 million pageviews last year. Significant concerns on sourcing, accuracy, and comprehensiveness. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 18:41, 6 April 2025 (UTC)

South America

• Nominator: Generalissima
• Improvements: (start state + improvement diff)
• Comments: Vital-2, 1.74 million pageviews last year. B-class, but on the low end of that; large portions of uncited text, and awkward prose (especially with the economy-related sections, which are long lists of links and statistics that are just not fun to read at all). Generally has an overemphasis on niche statistics over presenting a good overview of the continent itself. Last year I tried to do the history of a continent, but I've found that general geography might actually be more interesting and useful for my skillset, so I'm gonna try my best! Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 21:59, 6 April 2025 (UTC)

Trunk (botany)

• Nominator: Dracophyllum
• Improvements: (start state + improvement diff)
• Comments: Hopefully this will be more achievable than Flower. Article is start class and very bare bones, missing many sections. See progress at my userpage. Dracophyllum 09:11, 7 April 2025 (UTC)

Comments by judges

• Brilliant, this article is starting from a very poor baseline. Still a VIT4 article, with loads of potential for improvement. I can imagine that there is a large gap between the type of sources you could find on this (highly academic) and the type of people reading this (teenagers studying for their biology GCSEs for instance). To ensure the article doesn't become too technical, it may be useful to compare your text to secondary school text book material on this. Even now, the article already assumes more background knowledge than it should (like knowing what monocots are, or secondary growth). Looking forward to a beautifully illustrated article. I see you've not yet started writing in your userpage (text wouldn't count for the competition if it was dotted down in advance), but you have started to collect images, which might trigger the same concerns (right, @Casliber and Aza24:. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 16:35, 11 April 2025 (UTC)

  That's my bad. I guess don't include the quality of the images in your judging? Apologies, Dracophyllum 06:32, 13 April 2025 (UTC)

  I'm sure you'll do some more work on images while working on the article, so I hope we can give at least a few points there. Will make this clearer in the rules when I've got time! —Femke 🐦 (talk) 09:46, 13 April 2025 (UTC)

Eunuch

• Nominator: CitrusHemlock
• Improvements: (start state + improvement diff)
• Comments: A level four vital article which received over a million views in the past year. The article currently stands at C-class, and suffers from several issues. Notably, it lacks a standard citation style, a section on modern perceptions and depictions of eunuchs, and a section on similarities of eunuch classes between regions. For this competition I plan on shifting the article from individual descriptions of eunuch classes across regions, to broader, more integrated coverage of their general roles in society. CitrusHemlock 13:10, 7 April 2025 (UTC)

Dating

• Nominator: Rusalkii
• Improvements: (start state + improvement diff)
• Comments: I've been considering doing some work on this since I stumbled on it a few months ago. I don't usually work on big-picture article like this so it's possible all I'll really manage to do is de-cruft it, but I'll consider that a victory given the number of barely relevant and overspecific tangents. Any advice for finding sources would be appreciated, especially for a good multi-cultural overview of the concept. I'd also welcome anyone who wants to collaborate on this one. (I think there's a decent chance I'll withdraw with minimal work done, but I figured I'd rather put myself forward and then drop it than just think about it and never do anything at all) Rusalkii (talk) 21:55, 7 April 2025 (UTC)

Comments by others

• I must say I expected this to be a topic in historiography, archaeology or something similar. The article seems ripe for a "globalize" tag, with nothing about the world outside the US & UK. Hmmm. Much of it seems sourced to random anecdotal bits of journalism. Johnbod (talk) 03:07, 8 April 2025 (UTC)

  Yeah, I've taken a quick look at the sources and unfortunately this also seems reflected in at least the (easier to find in English) academic ones as well. I'm sure there's something there but I think it'll be quiete difficult to end up with an at all balanced article. Rusalkii (talk) 06:14, 8 April 2025 (UTC)

Spice

• Nominator: Rollinginhisgrave
• Improvements: (start state + improvement diff)
• Comments: 3, presently  – Unsourced text, weak coverage, some very weak sources and interesting claims (e.g. chocolate is a spice). The history section should be the easiest to find information on, I hope I can have sections on non-culinary uses, regional variations in use etc. Rollinginhisgrave (talk | contributions) 15:24, 8 April 2025 (UTC)

Imran Khan

• Nominator: SheriffIsInTown
• Improvements: (start state + improvement diff)
• Comments: 5, , 2.45 million page views last year – Since the subject is a popular political figure in Pakistan, the article contains a considerable amount of political point of view and misrepresentation of sources. My goal during this drive will be to ensure that the article content accurately reflects the information in the sources and that only reliable sources are used. Additionally, I will focus on improving the grammar. The article is over 17,000 words of prose; I will attempt to shorten it as time permits, and the work will continue after the contest ends. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 20:05, 8 April 2025 (UTC)

Comments by judges

• That's a brave (and spicy?) choice. Best to give page watchers a heads-up User:SheriffIsInTown, that you're planning to do major work on the article for this contest. I imagine there is increasing academic work on Khan, meaning we should be in the period where we can more easily distinguish details from key deveopments, and ensure we're up-to-date. The first controversy subsection for instance may have more recent developments perhaps? WP:3O may be a good one to keep in mind if there are disagreements, as it's probably the most effective content dispute resolution process. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 16:56, 11 April 2025 (UTC)

  @Femke I have been working on that article for months. The watchers already know I am making major changes, but if it's a requirement for this contest, I will leave a note on the talk page. Let me know. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 15:08, 12 April 2025 (UTC)

  Not a requirement of course. Just a tip given the contentious nature of the topic. If you're speeding up the number of edits, others may want to be "prepared" to chime in. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 17:21, 12 April 2025 (UTC)

Niamey

• Nominator: vigilantcosmicpenguin
• Improvements: (start state + improvement diff)
• Comments: 4, . This article is about 1600 words long, with a few unsourced paragraphs and some unreliable sources. As Niamey is a national capital with one million people, I expect that I can expand this article quite substantially and add some important information about the city's history and culture. — Vigilant Cosmic Penguin 🐧 (talk | contribs) 03:52, 9 April 2025 (UTC)

Comments by judges

• Lovely choice! I'm always excited when I see people address our systemic biases in the core contest. The lead is the first thing that stands out as needing improvements. Having 3/4 short/medium paragraphs makes it much more accessible. Given the many VIT1 to VIT3 others in the competition, you may need to show more improvements to vie for the prizes. Fortunately, the article is ripe for a massive improvement! I see you've got experience with these type of articles, but if you have questions, Chipmunkdavis and Amakuru might be able to help you out, as they've worked on similar geographic articles in the past. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 09:45, 13 April 2025 (UTC)

Seven Wonders of the Ancient World

• Nominator: Ealdgyth
• Improvements: (start state + improvement diff)
• Comments: Vital level 4, it has just under 2 million page views in the last 12 months. It's rated C-class but much of its content is a chart of the wonders. There is very little other content actually on concept or the various other selections of the ancient world's wonders. It currently comes in at 1255 words, and has a whole 18 citations. This will be my main focus, but I have hopes of also working on Warsaw Ghetto Uprising, using the Seven Wonders article as a more upbeat article to edit when the Uprising article gets me too depressed.