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

The contest runs over six weeks. Generally editors nominate the articles they intend working on beforehand as it might help folks to reserve an article so they can prepare by gathering some book/paper sources, however nominating material after this period ends is okay too—editors can still submit material they improved during the period. When the six-week editing period ends, the judges will review the submissions and announce the winners within two weeks. Other editors are welcome to comment on the entries.

The potential article pool includes vital and otherwise core articles. Editors are also welcome to improve and nominate an improvement to a broad or important article not on the two lists 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. Only edits made during the contest period may be included in the diff link.

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[edit]

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

Comments by judges[edit]

Comments by others[edit]

Mongol invasions and conquests[edit]

• Nominator: AirshipJungleman29
• Improvements: (start + improvement diff)
• Comments: Vital Level 4; C-class (start-class for MILHIST). Poorly organised (geographical instead of chronological), only 1503 words, haphazardly referenced. A number of recent publications mean I can revamp this, and other similar articles, before the big one itself. I hope to balance work on this with the ongoing Byzantine Empire FAR.

Comments by judges[edit]

• Glad to see you taking this on, clearly your track record proves you more than qualified. I completely agree with your choice of chronological over the current geographical style. Although I would be careful to not to over do it on that front; this isn't a timeline or list article after all. As I'm sure you realize, it would greatly benefit from some overview on general trends and motivations (I'm almost thinking of the crusading movement article): i.e. why were the Mongols acting as such. Iirc, they frequently offered self-governing vassalships to states, and invaded when rejected. Things like that should be said. Tying in the Franco-Mongol alliance may also be helpful. Best of luck! Aza24 (talk) 22:58, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by others[edit]

History of North America[edit]

• Nominator: Generalissima
• Improvements: (start + improvement diff)
• Comments: Level 3 Vital article, currently C-Class (although this may be over-grading it's current state.) Absurdly poorly referenced; most of the article has zero citations, including all history after the late 1700s. Basically no higher-level coverage of trends or geopolitical developments at all; article is more of an unreferenced timeline of various events, and takes a distinct focus on things like US involvement in wars outside of North America and individual elections. Also has a distinct Anglo-American bias. Currently just under 4000 words. The Pre-Columbian section, while needing work, is basically the only thing salvageable from this; for the rest, I will need to do a full re-write.

Comments by judges[edit]

• Great choice, and you're quite right about the article's dire state. As you say, you'll definitely need large cuts of the existing material. Some of the large surveys in the Further reading section will be crucial here; focusing on combining multiple region-specific survey sis probably easier, but verging on WP:SYNTH. In anycase, as with all large-scope history articles, do your best to remember that political history is not the end all be all :) The arts, sciences, exploration, sports, culture etc. are equally as historically relevant. Aza24 (talk) 00:55, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by others[edit]

Classical Chinese[edit]

• Nominator: Remsense
• Improvements: (start + improvement diff)
• Comments: Vital level-4; C-class. The hierarchy of articles is a bit of an issue here, since there are a number of highly important articles (e.g. Chinese classics) that overlap in scope, but I will try to propagate improvements here when necessary. Presently unillustrated, and very short and undigested for what is conservatively the second-most ramified written language in human history. Of course, this means I have to get serious about comfort reading Chinese sources—both Literary and vernacular—but I'm excited by the challenge. Props to Generalissima for specifically pointing out this article's need for improvement to me a few months ago.

Comments by judges[edit]

Definitely a relatively ignored article, somewhat surprising considering that topics such as Classical Chinese grammar and others (albeit mainly due to Kanguole) are in decent shape. The Nomenclature section is perhaps overly long, and the section order in general is a bit bizarre (both usage sections should presumably end the article). Glad to see you working on this—should be something of a culmination of your improvements on Chinese characters. Aza24 (talk) 01:04, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by others[edit]

Monarchy[edit]

• Nominator: Thebiguglyalien
• Improvements: (start + improvement diff)
• Comments: Vital 3, 164 language links, 468,583 views in 2023, tagged as confusing and OR since 2018, mostly unsourced, arbitrary in what aspects it covers.

Comments by judges[edit]

This should be a fine (and important) addition to your work on Dictatorship and Autocracy. Given its gloabl usage, the only thing I can advise is to be weary of Occident-bias. The Current monarchies section is interesting, but perhaps excessively detailed. The current images may also need further consideration. Good luck! Aza24 (talk) 01:09, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by others[edit]

Modern philosophy[edit]

• Nominator: Dilettante
• Improvements: (start + improvement diff)
• Comments: Several issues: level 4 start class; 21,677 bytes; 5,499 views in past month; article and wikidata entry are extremely eurocentric; severe gaps; largely unsourced and possible OR; 1,778 words according to xtools; no edits since July.

Comments by judges[edit]

• A poor article in pretty much everyway. The coverage on non-Western philosophies is particulalry dissapointing; although the current list can get you started, also consider Ethiopian philosophy and the work of Swami Vivekananda in India. As for the existing Western content, I see nothing on ethics, while the Analytical section would probably do better as combined section with Continental philosophy, to explain the difference. The actual content of either tradition probably belongs in the respective thematic sections. Good luck! Aza24 (talk) 01:18, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by others[edit]

Nursing[edit]

• Nominator: Draken Bowser
• Improvements: (start + improvement diff)
• Comments: I think there are issues both with respect to comprehensiveness and presentation. I especially don't like handling global perspective in this way, listing individual countries all over the world (ain't enough room to do all ~200). Rather, summary style and wikilinks should be used to facilitate conciseness, and help the reader navigate their way to whatever regional article piques their interest. I've also considered doing the cell, but I don't feel strongly about it. Maybe I'll take a stab unless it gets claimed below.

Comments by judges[edit]

• The very first sentence has ample opportunity for improvement. Sometimes I wish we gave editors warnings when they write overly long sentences. Fantastic choice. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 16:50, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by others[edit]

Turkey[edit]

• Nominator: Bogazicili (talk) 19:01, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Improvements: (start + improvement diff)
• Comments: This might be cheating a bit since I've been improving the article since February. I did several sections and rewrote the last paragraph in the lead already (early February version). The goal would be to make this article ready for GAR or close to it. This is a Level 3 vital article, currently B class. It has more than 6 million annual pageviews. There is also a review from 2020, which is helpful. I am going to add a paragraph about earthquakes into Geography section and will expand the paragraph I started about climate change [1] in Climate section. Except those, the length of the article should end up being considerably smaller.

Comments by judges[edit]

Comments by others[edit]

Wang Xizhi[edit]

• Nominator: DanCherek (talk · contribs)
• Improvements: (start + improvement diff)
• Comments: Vital-4 biography of an important non-Western historical figure. There's a huge disparity between the amount of scholarly literature and the current article's sourcing. Noting that I intend to focus on primarily using English-language sources at this point, but even so there's a lot of improvements that can be made!

Comments by judges[edit]

• Awesome choice! If you're only using English-language sources, it may be tricky to find detailed commentary on his calligraphy (an artform is which is typically de-vauled in the West), but hopefully his exceptional fame will help; most encyclopedias would also cover him (I see some are already cited). Generally, a good English-source that relies on Chinese sources is Chinaknowledge (see here), which can give you some ideas on what to include. Lead could use a lot of reworking, would love to see an emphasis on what exactly his works are and how they survive in copies and not originals. Aza24 (talk) 02:52, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by others[edit]

• Oh, this is exciting—I myself thought how important this article is. Great pick! Remsense诉 17:57, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Renewable energy[edit]

• Nominator: Tserton (talk · contribs)
• Improvements: (start + improvement diff)
• Comments: Definitely needs to be updated (parts of it are from 15 years ago, which with a topic like this one is ancient history), better cited in some parts and trimmed in others, especially as there's quite a bit of WP:CRYSTALBALL and POV in there. The article is full of non-sequiturs that would benefit from context, expansion or deletion. Background and history, currently scattered throughout the article, would probably also benefit from bring grouped or summarized in dedicated sections. And I would give more relative weight to the "big three" (hydropower, solar and wind).

Comments by judges[edit]

• I've done some work on this article in the past I believe. The first sentence is incorrect (low-carbon energy is something else). The rest of the lead is a tough read, with slightly too many statistics, in-line attributed sentences (to IEA). There is some overlap with sustainable energy, a FA I co-wrote, so you may get some inspiration there, even though we tried to focus much more on social and energy access issues there. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 18:35, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by others[edit]

Federal Republic of Central America[edit]

• Nominator: PizzaKing13 (talk · contribs)
• Improvements: (start + improvement diff)
• Comments: Level 5 vital article of a former country which has continued to influence Central American politics even after its collapse almost 200 years ago. Labeled as a C-class, though it reads/is structured like a start. Tagged as needing additional citations since October 2016; much of the article is unsourced. History section is extremely brief and excludes several events relevant to the country's history. Entirely unsourced section which lists attempts to restore the country which does not elaborate on the idea of Central America reunification in relation to the federal republic. I think I'd be rewriting the article entirely.

Comments by judges[edit]

Comments by others[edit]

Interesting - I'd never heard of it, but it averaged over 600 views pd last year. Lots to do, I'm sure. Johnbod (talk) 02:11, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Moscow[edit]

• Nominator: That Tired Tarantula
• Improvements: (start + improvement diff)
• Comments: This is a level 3 vital article currently rated as C-class. There is a significant amount of unsourced content (particularly in the History, Cityscape, Sports, Authorities, and Education sections) as well as a problem with the length; right now, there are 15,538 words. There is also some non-neutral wording. I will work on finding sources and decreasing the length; I will also work on copy editing.

Comments by judges[edit]

Comments by others[edit]

Edward Oliver LeBlanc[edit]

• Nominator: Sammielh (talk · contribs)
• Improvements: (start + improvement diff)
• Comments: This is a level 5 vital article of a a former premier of Dominica which is very accurately currently rated as a stub, with 4 references and 250 words. I will be out of the country for most of the contest period so I'm hoping with a fairly straightforward article like this, I should still be able to make some good progress.

Comments by judges[edit]

Comments by others[edit]

Independent music[edit]

• Nominator: — PerfectSoundWhatever (t; c)
• Improvements: (start + improvement diff)
• Comments: This is a L5 vital but that understates its importance. It's the high-level topic article for probably... hundreds of thousands of articles? Currently C and 3 orange tags from 2009, 16, and 18. No idea if I can do well with this one but gonna give it a shot. Question for the judges: if I begin improvement now, do those contributions count or no? Thanks — PerfectSoundWhatever (t; c) 21:32, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by judges[edit]

• John is quite right below. My recommendation in the meantime: gather sources; finish up any other projects that might distract you. Cool topic choice! A bit heavy on news sources at the moment. Although I can understand academic sources may be difficult to find, music scholarship has really expanded out in these past two decades, so you may be surprised. Aza24 (talk) 23:21, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by others[edit]

No, you have to wait for the start date. Johnbod (talk) 03:28, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Call of Duty[edit]

• Nominator: λ NegativeMP1
• Improvements: (start + improvement diff)
• Comments: A level 5 vital article for one of the most influential, important video game franchises of all time. It's in a fairly dire state, serving as mostly unsourced summaries of each game in the series, some Esports stuff, and a few controversies. It fails to address any influence of the franchise, the influence of its games, the gameplay of the series, or the history of its development. A complete rewrite is basically required. Improving this article will be fairly big venture, and a GAN might not be possible during the contest, but I'm going to try nonetheless. Specific note: If I am one of the main winners, I request that I be given no payout and instead the prize for everyone else be increased. I'm doing this for fun and to improve an article that seriously needs improvement. λ NegativeMP1 17:01, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by judges[edit]

• Lovely choice. It may only be level 5, but it likely makes up for that in coreness with readership. As you say, the article has potential to become more broad focussing less on game summaries. The second and third paragraph are good to read if you want to fall asleep. Best of luck. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 15:31, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by others[edit]

Pakistan[edit]

• Nominator: SheriffIsInTown
• Improvements: (start + improvement diff)
• Comments: A level 3, previously recognized as a featured article but now rated as class B. While it's not in a critical condition, its main issue is its excessive length, currently standing at over 15,000 words of readable prose. My immediate aim is to trim down the article's size, aiming for a reduction to around 10,000 words, although any size reduction would be better. In the long run, I aspire to restore it to its former status as a featured article. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 21:56, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by judges[edit]

• User:SheriffIsInTown. Very important article! You may want to post in advance on talk for feedback on your planned rewrite. It's a contentious topic, which means people will appreciate a heads-up. Despite its length, key information on climate change is missing. this World Bank report may be a good addition. Good luck. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 15:41, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by others[edit]

Voltairine de Cleyre[edit]

• Nominator: Grnrchst
• Improvements: (start + improvement diff)
• Comments: A level-5 vital article about a central figure of anarchism, feminism and individualism in the United States. It currently has a problem with an over-reliance on primary sources and inclusion of some questionable sources, while it never once cites some of the most major scholarly works about De Cleyre (notably Avrich 1978). It also hyper-focuses on certain aspects of her career and philosophy, while completely neglecting others. My aim is a bottom-up rewrite and expansion of the article, based on more clearly reliable sources, with the intention of eventually bringing it to good article status. --Grnrchst (talk) 13:00, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by judges[edit]

• 🥳 Let's see if we can make sure we get a 12-year steak with women from now on (this is the first one since 2012). Interesting article! I imagine readers may be unfamiliar with many of the key moments of the labour and anarchist movement in the US. For instance, I had never heard of the Haymarket affair. As a level-5 vital article, more progress is needed to compete for the prizes. Also note that improvements before the 15th don't count. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 06:52, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by others[edit]

Love[edit]

• Nominator: The Blue Rider
• Improvements: (start + improvement diff)
• Comments: "What is love?" you may ask. Love can be many things, depending on who you ask. It is a topic of extreme importance to society, with countless pop songs revolving around love or the lack thereof. Love is everywhere, and one cannot hide from it. This is why I will embrace my love for Wikipedia; otherwise, I don't know if I would have the strength to work on this poorly referenced, lengthy, and complex article.

Comments by judges[edit]

• That's a core as they come. I love your choice here. The lead is written for an audience of polyglots. I imagine our typical reader isn't interested in ancient Greek, portuguese, french and whatever the other languages are. WP:EXPLAINLEAD will be key to getting a better article. A tremendous challenge. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 18:17, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by others[edit]

It's not vandalism if you replace the whole article with a link to this, btw. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 16:34, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ah yes, the classic interwiki soft redirect to YouTube. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 18:02, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it is the most comprehensive, in-depth, understandable, and important discussion of the topic that has ever been made, so I think we can look past WP:YT here. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 18:49, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mind[edit]

• Nominator: Phlsph7
• Improvements: (start + improvement diff)
• Comments: A level 2 vital article with on average 25000 monthly page views. I count 28 unreferenced paragraphs in the body of the article with 5x More citations needed tags, 1x need quotation to verify tag, and 2x citation needed tags. It has some WP:DUEWEIGHT issues, like having 7 paragraphs on Buddhism while a single paragraph is used to cover all the remaining religions together. I'm not particularly happy with how the topics are divided into sections and there seem to be many overlaps but I'll have to do some more in-depth research to see how that could be addressed.

Comments by judges[edit]

• You do love to challenge yourself! Amazing to have a level-2 article in the competition. A curious emphasis on pseudoscience already in the lead image, and an entire section on parasychology... structure can definitely be improved. Surprisingly, the first paragraph is not awful. I'm looking forward to seeing what this article will transform into! —Femke 🐦 (talk) 15:22, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by others[edit]

Night[edit]

• Nominator: Rjjⁱⁱⁱ
• Improvements: (start + improvement diff)
• Comments: Vital Level 4, 146 languages, and C-class. Someone added "get some references" to the talk page todo list back in 2007. Some parts of the article do have sources, and I worked on one section earlier this year, but most of the article remains uncited.

Comments by judges[edit]

Comments by others[edit]

I've always wanting to improve this one for a while, although I've found the research process difficult; it's a very broad, general thing to write about. Moneytrees🏝️(Talk) 20:10, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Performing Arts[edit]

• Nominator: Librarian of Sand
• Improvements: (start + improvement diff)
• Comments: Vital Level 2, C-class, ~20,000 views a month, large swaths unsourced, some sections over-reliant on a single source, many sections underdeveloped, there's a whole lot here I plan to rework. I know this is a big swing in comparison to the small amounts of editing I've done so far, but I'm confident in my ability to track down sources for much of the existing material (adding & subtracting where necessary), and then to just improve the article section by section from there. Ultimately hoping to add some broader reflections and sociological perspective/connections. I think for a topic this broad with so much history and cultural importance, this article has a great deal of potential.

Comments by judges[edit]

Comments by others[edit]

Antioch[edit]

• Nominator:AirshipJungleman29
• Improvements: (start + improvement diff)
• Comments: Vital-4, C-class, 600k views/year. Antioch is one of the greatest cities in world history, dominating a region for close to a millennium and being the place where Christians were first called such, but the article does not match this importance. Referencing is very poor, with a reliance on ancient/medieval writers, and many modern sources are out of date; weighting is similarly out of whack. A recent full-length treatment of the city's history should be a significant help. This is my second entry of the year.

Comments by judges[edit]

• Another one where a single edit to the first sentence can make a huge difference. It'll likely scare anyone away not trained in those classical languages. As you say, the article is quite the mess with many overly long or overly short paragraphs. The article already has quite good imagery, so that'll be difficult to improve. I think this brings us over 25 million total views! —Femke 🐦 (talk) 19:35, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by others[edit]

Library of Congress[edit]

• Nominator: Generalissima
• Improvements: (start + improvement diff)
• Comments: Inspired by Airship, I decided I should also enter a smaller-scale side project for the contest. Vital-4, B-class (although this may be an overestimation), ~400,000 pageviews per year. The Library of Congress is one of the largest libraries in the world, and it is certainly quite storied. The article does have a number of unsourced statements throughout, but the bigger problem in my estimation is the sheer lack of academic sourcing. Current sources include multiple cites for the LibraryThing category on Jefferson's personal library, a tweet, its own various annual reports dating back to the 19th century, and (encompassing the vast majority of sourcing) the LOC's website and haphazard news coverage. I plan to expand the history and bring in a variety of academic publication and studies of the library to hopefully bring this thing up to the standard it should be.

Comments by judges[edit]

Comments by others[edit]