Below are the submissions for the April/May 2022 running of the Core Contest

• Nominator:Caeciliusinhorto (talk ·contribs)
• Comments: Level 3 vital article; over 3,500 hits per day. The skeleton of the article is okay, but the detail needs work. I did some work on this back inthe 2017 contest, so the text in the sections on§Classical Greece and§Literature and theatre is basically sound. After that I somewhat ran out of steam, so a lot still needs doing. I don't know how much I'll actually do, but I'm signing up here to try to give myself some motivation to have another crack at this.

• Judge's comment: Good choice. You're setting the tone with a highly core article. Much of the text is uncited. The article stands at around 9,000 words, so it'll not be a matter of expansion, but rather a matter of really extracting what's important.Femke (talk)08:04, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Super-core, & on a quick look your comments all seem right. Not a single link toGreek temple (nor to any other kind), which is well... remarkable. Nor to any of our 100+ articles on Greek pottery.Johnbod (talk)02:54, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Great choice - thoughts echo the precedingCas Liber (talk·contribs)13:16, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• I considered this for about three seconds and the thought it'd be too much for me. It's an important article and definitely could use the improvement.Ealdgyth (talk)20:28, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Real life got in the way so I never really got going with this. I did make some notes and put together a reading list, so I may chip away at the article in the coming months...Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk)08:13, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Nominator:Guettarda (talk ·contribs)
• Level 3 vital article that's a bit of a mess. I don't know nearly enough about the topic to really get it where it needs to go, but the fact that it's written almost entirely from the perspective of the colonisers, the fact that there isn't even mention of people likeAimé Césaire orFranz Fanon orKwame Nkrumah, bothers me. There are problems with structure, with sourcing, with tone, with balance. It's 119k, but it says too little about theory, about postwar decolonisation. It's a fairly daunting task, tbh.
• Comment: obviously vital article. At 9,000 words to 92 citations, the raw numbers suggest it's undercited, especially for such a contentious and highly-studied subject. Some paragraphs, even whole subsections, are totally uncited; in other cases there are multiple citations where one would probably be sufficient. I also see at least two theses (one an MA thesis!) cited: an article like this can and should do better. The lead is very short for such a long article. Even without reading the article in detail I have concerns about the existing structure – why, for instance, is "assassinated anti-colonialist leaders" a top-level section? Looks like there's plenty to keep you busy here!Caeciliusinhorto (talk)08:51, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: At the moment the article includes blurbs on the process of decolonization for a lot of countries. I would gently suggest to reject this approach. It seems unrealistic to try and sum up specific decolonization cases for every country on earth—a more general approach would work much better, and be far less disjointed.Aza24 (talk)08:57, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• A pretty terrible article, so a good choice. Far too many lists of facts/events, and too little analysis . Thisremoval from the lead, 2 years ago seems a mistake to me. It needs more like this, not less (but with appropriate refs). Almost the longest section is on the US. More proper historians needed, imo. 802 views pd.Johnbod (talk)16:55, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Judge's comment: Brave choice. I'm surprised how little controversy the article attracts. Loads of possibilities for improvements, foremost the NPOV issues.Femke (talk)12:08, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Excellent choice and something that is going to be tricky to get right, without turning yourself into a target in the process!Ealdgyth (talk)20:33, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Nominator:Johnbod (talk ·contribs)
• Currently only a redirect to a pathetic paragraph: "In sculpture, the Florentine artist Donato di Niccolò di Betto Bardi, or Donatello, was among the earliest sculptors to translate classical references into marble and bronze.^[1] His second sculpture ofDavid was the first free-standing bronze nude created in Europe since the Roman Empire.^[2]" - Literally,that's it! So starting from a blank slate (this was for a long time my standard example of a missing important article, until someone added the redirect). I might end up withRenaissance sculpture, currently a redirect to a shortish section by me inSculpture, an entry here some years ago (I notice now that only covers Italy at present). Either way, a gaping gap in our coverage - typically, we have literally hundreds of articles on individual artists and works, many not bad, but nothing to pull them together and give context. Should be Level 4 vital at least, likeEmpire style andDada, and two of the specific works, by Michelangelo and Donatello. But since it doesn't yet exist, it isn't. By contrast,Italian Renaissance painting (220 views pd) is a large and good article, withThemes in Italian Renaissance painting as a large sub-article. The very patchyRenaissance art (612 views pd) is also almost exclusively about painting + Michelangelo, so the new one needs reflecting there.Johnbod (talk)18:19, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Wow, maximum points for crapness of starting point – Donatello is really the only sculptor mentioned in the entire article on Renaissance art?! (Michelangelo is only mentioned as a painter!) Given that it doesn't exist as a standalone article yet, it's surprisingly core, if not absolute top-level.Caeciliusinhorto (talk)20:01, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks! The current redirect is (wrongly really) toItalian Renaissance.Renaissance art has a few words on Michelangelo's sculpture ("Michelangelo in neither his painting nor his sculpture demonstrates any interest in the observation of any natural object except the human body. He perfected his technique in depicting it, while in his early twenties, by the creation of the enormous marble statue of David and the group Pietà, in the St Peter's Basilica, Rome. He then set about an exploration of the expressive possibilities of the human anatomy..." and namechecks for Ghiberti & Donatello.Johnbod (talk)02:39, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Wow... our art topics really do suck, don't they? Good luck, at least you have a free hand...Ealdgyth (talk)20:31, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Final diff Phew! Started from scratch, so just the linkto the version at the end of the contest is needed. Very enjoyable to do. A handful of edits by others are just tidying.Johnbod (talk)00:03, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Nominator:Vami_IV (talk ·contribs)
• Improvements:BEGINNING, 20 April 2022 —ENDING, 31 May 2022
• Comments: Vital 3. The Liberator. Revolutionary. Beloved leader; hated tyrant. The Arch-Liberal; emancipator. Abjured by Marx; beloved by Chavez. Unstoppable force; immovable object. A name for an ideology, a generation, and a continent.The Hope, he would be called,Of The Universe. He is Bolívar. A name that echoes across history. ––♠Vami_IV†♠20:59, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Judge's comment: While the article is sufficiently long already (almost 8,000 words), it certainly needs a large clean-up: some unreliable sources, a large excerpts from a books, some of the paragraphs are uncited, one-sentence paragraphs. Sources are a bit old, but I'm not sure how much modern scholarship there is on the topic. Will make an interesting read.Femke (talk)14:45, 10 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • You're not sure how much modern scholarship there is on the most important individual in the history of South America…? I just don’t follow…Aza24 (talk)18:46, 10 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Worded that awkwardly. I meant: is 2008 an old source for this topic? Within climate science, such a such may be completely unusable. I'm not sure how much our understanding over Bolivar has changed over the last 15 years.Femke (talk)19:00, 10 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  As I presently understand, the most definitive biographies on Bolivar in English are from 1969 and 2014. ––♠Vami_IV†♠19:18, 10 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Drive-by comment: as someone who was thinking of doing Bolívar for this, I wish Vami the best of luck, and note that the growth of different forms of Venezuelan nationalism since Chávez' death, and more recent opinions on Bolívar's own privilege and freedom-by-oppression, will have also had an effect on the perception of the man to at least some. Definitely some things to add, as well as much clean-up; very interested in the final product!Kingsif (talk)10:42, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  @Kingsif: Many thanks, my comrade. I am eager to please. I am also all ears if you have recommendations for sources. I have a big list of them already, but I'm happy to have more. –♠Vami_IV†♠05:17, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Last year, this article averaged 2,337 views a day for a total of 852,960. Now that I'm about halfway through Bolívar's life, I can say that this article was underdeveloped – likewise for pretty much every related article. Thus far, I've ripped out a lot of poorly cited and/or not very neutral prose and some large quotations, and replaced content not too focused on Bolívar himself (Side note: I've found it curious that there isn't a Spanish-language article on Bolívar's family; there's obviously much to be said about the Bolívars). Lots of literature to exploit in English; I try not to think about the ocean of Spanish academia that could be consulted. I begin to see whyNapoleon is almost 20,000 words as of time of writing. –♠Vami_IV†♠23:29, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Again, I hadn't specifically looked for sources, but I'm sure what's left of the Venezuela WikiProject would be willing to help translate with cultural notes any Spanish bios or whatnot you do come across.Kingsif (talk)23:56, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Close-of-business comments, or Letter from WP:TCC: In totality, my contributions amount to -16,515 bytes to total article size; as for prose size, I haven taken the article down ~600 words. But these have valuable and highly constructive byte-bleedings. Most of those ~20,000 bytes are attributable to bunk, low-quality citations in #Legacy for things better summarized - specifically, specific examples of places and things named after the Liberator. The rest is mostly attributable to my having cut out overly large quotations and text supported by no citations. I have totally written the article and now have a commanding share of its authorship. Do note, however, that this involved totally erasing the previous description of Bolívar's life and times from 1815 to 1819, and some unreliable sources (I am looking at you,Salvador de Madariaga).
  As I write this, there is still a gap between 1 January 1817 and ~1819, but I'll be rectifying that soon. I had hoped to have done that today, but alas -c'est la vie - Bolívar's is quite a large life and quite a busy and interesting time! My rewriting spans ~6,000 words and better and with more concentration describes (at present) 1783 to 1817, from seven books and a single paper. But I shall continue to work on this article! My respect for the Liberator is tempered now that I've spent so much time really learning about him, but not broken. I hope to have this article through GAN between the dates 5 July and 24 July and at FAC by 17 December. –♠Vami_IV†♠03:09, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Nominator:Amakuru (talk ·contribs)
• Comments: Level 4 vital article; has around 730 hits per day apparently. A slightly tricky topic, sitting as it does in between the individual country articles and the overallAfrica article. And it does receivesomewhat fewer hits than the continent or any individual country. But on the plus side, it's quite crap-looking at the moment. The history section is just a couple of paragraphs with a whole string of "empty section" tags slotted between them. Culture and Demographics are similarly lacking, while Economy is a little better looking. I honestly can't promise how much I'll be able to get done as it's a very busy time for me on multiple fronts, but you've got to be in it to win it so I'll at least put my hat in the ring if the judges think this is a sensible choice. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk)18:36, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Good choice - loads to do, which may not include expanding every one of the empty section tags.Johnbod (talk)02:46, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Important subject that needs a lot of work, it looks like.Ealdgyth (talk)20:31, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Thanks for the feedback, but unfortunately like some others here it's been too hectic a time for me to make any progress on this. Maybe next year! Cheers  — Amakuru (talk)09:25, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Nominator:Trainsandotherthings (talk ·contribs)
• Comments: This article is level 3 vital, an obviously important topic, but it needs a lot of work. It's more of a list than an article in some places, the see also section is reportedly visible from space by astronauts on the International Space Station, and in general the article is very unfocused. The image[1] used to not even depict pollution until I changed it a while back. At under 4,000 words, there is some room for expansion as well, though I do believe there is merit in keeping broader articles to a reasonable length by adhering to summary style.Trainsandotherthings (talk)02:18, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Judge's comment: good choice. Undercited, poorly structured, outdated sourcing. Theneoclassical notion of pollution as an externality and the notion of an optimal level of pollution is presented as the only viewpoint, ignoring criticism (https://epub.wu.ac.at/8108/ seems like a good starting point for criticism of that POV).Femke (talk)12:31, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Oh, good luck. I wouldn't even have the slightest idea where to start so props to you for tackling this.Ealdgyth (talk)20:32, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• It's as you say - also the earlier parts of the history are pretty inadequate.Johnbod (talk)20:39, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Progress, May 27I haven't had as much time as I would have liked to work on this article. Between working full time and being part of a musical which had two weekends of performances, I've only been able to dedicate an hour or two to this article. I won't be winning the contest, but I've made improvements to a very important article, which is more important than winning to me. I will hopefully get a bit more done this weekend. As of now, improvements include:

• The biggest improvement I've made is adding a section on naturally occurring pollution, which was totally ignored by the existing article.[2] I have added information on pollution from volcanoes and wildfires, two of the biggest natural sources.
• I've added a few sentences discussing the differing definitions of what a pollutant is. Some definitions explicitly include heat and greenhouse gasses (UN definition), others do not (EPA definition).
• I also trimmed the photos, cut back the large number of external links and see also links, made some minor fixes, and deleted some outdated information. Another editor has removed some of the content which was poorly written and/or sourced.Trainsandotherthings (talk)20:56, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Nominator:DanCherek (talk ·contribs)
• Comments: This is a level-4 vital article about a key figure in the history of Arthurian legend. Lots to improve and lots of available sourcing that can be used to expand the article.DanCherek (talk)15:05, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Oh, good choice! I thought about him, but I am still having flashbacks to a seminar in college where that one guy kept droning on and on about Geoffrey... I hope you'll do justice to the guy!Ealdgyth (talk)20:26, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Tricky writing a biography of someone about whom so little is certainly known, but good luck!Johnbod (talk)21:47, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Judge's comment: Perhaps less core than other entries, here, but certainly an important topic. The advantage of writing about somebody about whom little is known, is that reaching comprehensiveness within 6 weeks is doable. I would argue it is currently a C-class article, even if the sourcing is quite old.Femke (talk)11:29, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Still working on this one offline and need some more time before I'm ready to hit publish, sorry, sowithdrawing my entry. (Had been planning on a final push these last few days but with traveling to a friend's wedding and an increasingly busy IRL work schedule, I just... didn't) Thanks to the commenters above, I am definitely continuing with this after May.DanCherek (talk)02:30, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Nominator:Ealdgyth (talk ·contribs)
• Comments: Vital level 2. 111 wikis. Gets around 49K views a month, 590K a year. Right now, rated C-class. 13,200 words, with 142 footnotes, so about 92 words per footnote. About 8000 words unreferenced, so about 61% unreferenced. Has five big section cleanup banners. The sources... oh, the sources. (and the icky timelines that are useless). A pile of very very old sources. Some popular "histories" (Time Almanac anyone?), personal websites, answers-dot-com, mailing lists, ancient sources, BBC, newspapers, etc. Utterly unbalanced in coverage - way too much on chronology, the Middle East, and Europe; while not enough elsewhere - a whopping 1560ish bytes on sub-Saharan African history. Thanks for those who helped me decide! Let's hope dealing with the article doesn't break my will to edit...Ealdgyth (talk)20:24, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Certainly loads to do - I commentedon the CC talk.Johnbod (talk)20:39, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Starting state -hereEaldgyth (talk)13:21, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• And I think I'm done. I'll probably keep poking at bit, but the major overhaul is done. Ending state isHere on 29 May 2022.
• The major effort was just streamlining and removing redundancies, plus a major overhaul of sourcing. The sourcing isn't of a FA level, but it's a solid base to begin with, and covers the basics. I've tried to be very inclusive with links and covering the bare bones of information. There are a couple of spots still lacking sources - notably some of the Sub-Sahran African stuff and the North American stuff - neither of those is wrong based on my own personal knowledge, I just haven't tracked down sources for that information. I'm reasonably comforatable leaving it unsourced. There's a couple of spots where I left a cn tag on something that is almost certainly true (usually it's capital cities, oddly enough) but wasn't in the sources I was consulting. It's now 8033 words, with about 730 of them uncited, so we're into 9% unsourced, down from 13,200 words, with 61% unsourced when I started. The sourcing is vastly improved - and while the balance is better, I know there's stuff still missing, but at least the basics are there to start building on.Ealdgyth (talk)15:15, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Nominator:Artem.G (talk ·contribs)
• Comments: Extremely important article that got ~400K views last year. Though it's classified as B-class, there are 7 'citation needed' tags, '[unreliable source?]', 'more citations' template, [excessive citations], multiple unsourced statements, broken layout,WP:PROSELINE in some sections (f.e. in 'Exploration'), giant 'See also', and some strange choice of images. I'm not sure I'll rewrite everything, but will try at least to address all problems mentioned above, and update that article to reflect latest missions to asteroids, etc.Artem.G (talk)10:49, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Judge's comment: Another VIT3 article! In addition to the points mentioned, the lead is also in a poor state. It's on the difficult side, not sufficientlyunderstandable to a broad readership, and it's too short.Femke (talk)11:39, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It got rated as 'B' when it was delisted as a Good Article in 2009. So is an artefact of days gone by and probably not looked at since. Good choice of article - lead could be more comprehensive. Has anoverview section which needs to be redefined, also lots of choppy paragraphs, and a llargesee also section which needs reviewing.Cas Liber (talk·contribs)21:09, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Improvements:from this tothis: completely rewrote the lead, removed obscure 'Overview' section, provided refs to all 'citation needed' places, changed the structure of the article, expand several sections and updated stale info, completely rewrote 'Exploration' and 'History'. New photos and images added, new sections added (copied from such articles as Active asteroid, Asteroid mining, etc - IMO this is the main article that should be treated as an overview of the topic). 'Classification' and 'Near-Earth asteroids' still need work and sources, but I've got a bit tired with asteroids and would try to do it later. 'See also' and 'External links' got purged, and I've added a 'Further reading'. Overall I think the article became much better, though still should be copyedited (I've nominated it to GOCE, after the ce I'll try to finish sourcing and maybe nominate it to GA).Artem.G (talk)08:56, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

* Nominator:CactiStaccingCrane (talk ·contribs)

• Comments: This Vital level 3 article is prime for a huge expansion. Also, why not try?CactiStaccingCrane (talk)13:00, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Judge's comment: Another level 3. Important article, quite bare-bones still (under 2000 words). Remember: slow and steady wins the race. It's better to do a smaller expansion where you've double checked the grammar and the source-text integrity, than expanding the article too fast. (I know your enthusiasms sometimes gets the better of you). Good luck!Femke (talk)16:35, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Great choice! The article seems to be not that bad, though it seems to be outdated. "Architecture" needs a lot of work, and "In fiction" is just one link.Artem.G (talk)16:39, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Nominator:Vaticidalprophet (talk ·contribs)
• Comments: I nearly forgot about this... This is a Vital 5 article that pullsMillion Award-tier pageviews and is indire shape. It's Start-class, has a fairly brief explanation of the mythological concept, and absolutely no discussion of any of the cultural portrayals of the last few centuries. Only 891 words long! 21 citations, some of which are good, but others of which aren't great (dictionary definitions, primary historical sources, sketchy 90s websites, shoehorned-in Skeptic's Dictionary). Hoping to do some good work here.Vaticidalprophet02:30, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Perhaps less broad than some of the other topics chosen, but still reasonably core, and clearly of interest, as the million page views per year and 47 articles in other language wikipedias attests. Clearly an absolutely dreadful article in its current state – other than Johnbod's choice of an article which doesn't even exist yet, this might be the worst of the bunch. The "scientific explanations" section is a particularly horrific offender (this book is about as far from being a reliable source as it's possible to get) but the whole article is so bad that I'd be tempted to ignore it completely and write something new from scratch.Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk)08:49, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Yeah, that's my plan. It's a similar tier to the pre-rewriteprehistoric religion of last year, which I also redid from scratch -- it looked likethis at the time. The nicest thing I can say comparatively is this one has fewer galleries.Vaticidalprophet10:21, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Intriguing choice. Lots of mythological material needs improving so keen to see how it turns outCas Liber (talk·contribs)20:59, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Nominator:Dracophyllum (talk ·contribs)
• Improvements: Managed to rewrite the morphology section, which has been a mess for a long time, but not much else. Hit a brick wall when trying to research and write the culture and symbolism sections; barely any sources to give an overview. Still, it looks better than it did.[3]Dracophyllum05:58, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Comments: Made some progress on this last contest, but it's still a mess. Level 3 vital, C class, just shy of a quarter million views in the last year. Sections that still need overhauling include: morphology, evolution, symbolism and human use.Dracophyllum02:59, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Judge's comment: Exciting! (Sorry for the late response@Dracophyllum:) Just shy of 8,000 words, this will be another article that needs overhauling rather than expansion. The lede is highly technical, and will need some rethinking to comply withWP:EXPLAINLEAD. Good luck!Femke (talk)19:25, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Very important articleCas Liber (talk·contribs)13:11, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Nominator:Chipmunkdavis (talk ·contribs) (Pre-edit oldid:[4])
• Comments: A late entry, but hopefully listing it here will push me forward. Last contest I improvedDili, so I thought I might take a crack at the higher-levelEast Timor this time. The article has a mixture of quality; many areas have sources, but others are full of citation needed tags (the oldest dates from2008) or are simply unsourced without tags. Lots that I can see needs doing already, and I expect more to pop up as I work through it.
• Judge's comment: Exciting to see a country here. Present in 224 languages, it will make a great resource for translation. I see a lot has been done already, sorry for my tardy comment. I'd be curious to know if the country candiversify before oil and gas turn intostranded assets. Geography is quite a short section and lacks text on climate change (alas, my comments do betray professional brain deformation..). In addition to the points raised, the article can benefit from a copy-edit, possibly taking into account a readership that might not have English as its first language.Femke (talk)19:16, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Improvements:diff,page id.
  Came into this thinking wow, no-one has looked at this since about 2012. Leaving hoping people might now think no-one has looked at it since 2021. Didn't have as much time as I wanted, and there's still more work to do. Nonetheless, I think it's in much better shape. I didn't have enough time to tackle the History section, although I made time to add one paragraph that was greatly needed to reduce systematic bias. I did have time to properly rebuild the Politics and government, Foreign relations and military, Geography, and Economy sections, in addition to Administrative divisions which didn't really have prose before this (and was missing the latest division!). Towards the end I made some good progress on Demographics, updating and contextualising the main section, and rebuilding the Languages subsection into an Ethnicity and language subsection(if you find excellent sources on this please let me know). I made good headway into the Education subsection, although not quite to the point where I've reached an opinion about its internal weighting and weight within the article. For Culture I added to the main section, but this is likely in no way complete and I have not had time to assess the existing text and subsections. I ran into typical country article issues here, most notably difficulty in distinguishing the various article sections where they overlap. Prose has expanded, but at least in the rebuilt sections, has been kept in check through summary style and shifting details/old info to subarticles where appropriate. Overall, much easier to work on than last year'sDili. If anyone else has thoughts on improving the article, please feel free to dump them on my talkpage, as I intend to keep at this one for a bit longer. Thanks to the judges/organisers for another event.CMD (talk)02:20, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Nominator:PerfectSoundWhatever (talk ·contribs)
• Comments: New to this whole contest so hopefully I'm doing this right! I've recently expanded the prose thricefold, and would like to continue expanding, but finding sources is a desperate issue. —PerfectSoundWhatever (t;c)00:32, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Judge's comment: yes you're doing this right, and your contributions after April 15 but before you signed up count :). Another level-4 vital article. I had a quick look at the medium-sized Wikipedias, but they're even more light on sources. Maybe you'll find some in the articles for similar landforms? And maybe you can detail the differences with other landforms more explicitly? Note that the see also section comes before the references.Femke (talk)06:13, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Finished, improved fromdiff 4/22 todiff 5/31. Would have liked to improve this much more, but it's a very odd subject as it turns out (little is written about specifically peninsulas) and so I think I did good given the sources available. A few stats for fun: myWhoWroteThat percentage is 74.3%, but is essentially 100% if you only include the prose. "readable prose size" expanded from 203 words to 652 words. My takeaway? I definitely shouldn't win this contest, but hey, at least I did something pretty productive. —PerfectSoundWhatever (t;c)01:38, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Nominator:CactiStaccingCrane (talk ·contribs)
• Comments: I give up onspace station and wander around Wikipedia for quite a bit. Somehow, for some reason, I found improving a Level 1 Vital article interesting. Hopefully I can do miracles in 3 days...CactiStaccingCrane (talk)13:05, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Update: 12 hours left, and I think we'd made good progress. I think I do the least work here out of the group as I primarily fixing layout and images, the others who have done great amount to improve the content areUser:Danielkueh andUser:Ancheta Wis. If this article gets a prize, it should go to Daniel and Ancheta instead of me. 4 days isn't much, but it's going way better than I'd expected.CactiStaccingCrane (talk)12:32, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Update 2:Done, seebefore andafter our improvement,diff.CactiStaccingCrane (talk)01:39, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Judge's comment: bold choice! Same comment as before: don't edit too much at once, so that you can get feedback from page watchers, who may be able to help with copy-editors. I'm not sure if grouping the politizitation of science with science policy was a good idea; they don't have that much to do with each other. The article has good bones, so it's a matter of removing trivialities, US bias, and finding high-quality sources.Femke (talk)18:00, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• CS1 Italian-language sources (it)