Cannabis Ruderalis

thcscience_admin

Below are the submissions for the June/July 2021 running of the Core Contest

List of contest entries[edit]

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.

British West Indies[edit]

8 kb of readable prosesize, 9 measly refs. Plenty of room for expansion! Important broad topic. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:10, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Zoology[edit]

  • Nominator - Cwmhiraeth (talk · contribs)
  • Improvements: I found this more difficult than I expected. Biology used to be divided into two areas, zoology and botany, but nowadays, zoology hardly exists as a topic, having been superseded by all its sub-disciplines. My improvements mostly covered the History section, and took it from this (9822 B) to to this (19kb). Cwmhiraeth (talk) 08:49, 16 July 2021 (UTC) Diff like we ask for - some edits by others. Johnbod (talk) 21:16, 24 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments: I see this article as woefully undeveloped. Besides expanding the history section, I aim to work on its scope, subdisciplines and methods, and will look to foreign language Wikipedias for inspiration. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:30, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Judge comment: Excellent choice! 2 line lead, few refs (& mostly to papers). Gets avge 588 views pd - that might well rise over time if it were better. What is there seems good quality though. Johnbod (talk) 10:48, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed - only 21 refs, and article less than 10kb of readable prose. Good choice! Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:05, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Judge comment: Great choice! As you say, loads to do. Johnbod (talk) 15:07, 23 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Prehistoric religion[edit]

  • Nominator - Vaticidalprophet (talk · contribs)
  • Improvements: From 25th May to 14th July. Huge expansion from 722 words prosesize to 11350, 7 unique refs to 224, and Start to GA. Authorship percentage from 0% to 97.7%. Vaticidalprophet 14:41, 14 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments: This Vital 4 is in shocking shape, with seven refs, the most-used to Britannica, and a two-sentence lead plus 722 words readable prose. I can't guarantee anything, but I'd at least like to think I can make it better. It's an article that demands summary style, having quite a few sub-articles, but simultaneously being where most general readers would end up (considering Paleolithic and Neolithic aren't day-to-day terms); I'll do what I can to provide a good and accessible overview of this topic on which we still don't know what we don't know. Vaticidalprophet 04:40, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Good choice! Looking forward to reading what we think we know. The article has the perfect amount of crappiness for the core contest. FemkeMilene (talk) 08:19, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Judges comment. Good but tough choice. Geographical balance will be tricky, I suspect. Avge 217 views. Best to take a largely thematic approach? Johnbod (talk) 14:56, 23 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, great choice. Article is in such rudimentary shape that if you're able to really overhaul it, it will be a huge improvement. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 15:29, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Duck[edit]

  • Nominator - MeegsC (talk · contribs)
  • Improvements: Real life got crazy at the wrong time, so I didn't get very far with this. Added a taxonomy section, some about hunting and some referencing, but that's about it. :/ Start Changes
  • Comments: This level-4 article is rated as C-class, but that's probably generous. There's nothing about taxonomy, and much of the article is bitty and unreferenced. The references that are included are pretty appalling: Self-published books? Mythbusters? "How to draw cartoon birds"??! Yikes! Judging by the large number of other languages with "Duck" entries, improving this one in the English Wikipedia might result in a cascade ripple elsewhere. It gets an average of ~1600 views/day (last 90 days).
  • Judge comment: these masters of land, air and sea make a great choice. I see that there isn't any information about how ducks are affected by environmental change. FemkeMilene (talk) 07:33, 23 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Judge comment: Good choice - article is as you say. Celtic art is the great period for ducks (and other waterbirds, but especially ducks) in art. Johnbod (talk) 15:05, 23 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Might be tricky deciding what info to have here and what on Anatidae. Good broad article though. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 15:37, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The arts[edit]

  • Nominator - Thrownfootfalls (talk · contribs)
  • Improvements: Just one edit moving a section. Johnbod (talk) 01:30, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments: If somebody else thinks they can take do great things with this article, I'll happily step aside and let them take over instead. Right now, though, the article is a bit of a jumble, oddly divided, and some parts read like placeholders. Given how important it is, even some modest improvements could make a big difference, even if all I do is make it more worthy of its C-class status.
  • Judge comment: Interesting choice. Hmm, c. 1300 views a day, though one wonders how many actually want Art. The literature, music and theatre sections are derisory, & the few references mostly to pretty random internet pages (though in a way most of the article is so high-level this may not matter so much). Lots more links & refs to better sources wanted. It may be tricky to get it all to hang together though. Johnbod (talk) 19:38, 23 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Intriguing choice. Lots of segments lacking citations - I think any attempt to streamline it or make it more cohesive will be a big step in the right direction Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 15:39, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Lusaka[edit]

  • Nominator - Amakuru (talk · contribs)
  • Improvements: During the contest period I have expanded the prose of this article from 10kb (1554 words) at the beginning of June, to 35kb (5678 words now). The biggest addition is the history section, which was previously just a few short paragraphs and a population table and is now a sub-sectioned and reasonably detailed account of Lusaka from its earliest known settlers through the local tribes that lived there before colonialism, and on to its designation as first Northern Rhodesia's and then Zambia's capital. Other sections I've written include Geography, which didn't exist at all previously and now includes cityscape (replacing the old list that Cas Liber mentions below) and climate. Then there's Demographics, which includes languages, Economy, Healthcare and Sport, which are all rewritten or new. The lead has been expanded too to include more of the history. Sadly I didn't quite complete the job during the contest - the Government, Places of Worship, Culture, Retail, Transport and Notable people sections are all as they were before, and some of that is not referenced. I hope to do those in the next few weeks, however, after which this should be ready for a GA run. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 23:03, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Before, diff, FemkeMilene (talk) 09:21, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments: I ended up here as a result of discussion on the talk page. I initially thought of doing Kampala, but then I realised that on the crapness scale, Lusaka is way ahead of Kampala. For a national capital, this is pretty woeful. The history section has very little detail, and most sections have barely more than one short paragraph of prose, sometimes with random over-long lists thrown in. "Economy" is the jewel of the crown, being a two sentence micro-section discussing the various shopping malls in the city. The talk page classes this as C-class, which I think is being very generous to it! I can't promise how much I'll be able to work on this during the six weeks, but I'll give it a go.  — Amakuru (talk) 20:43, 23 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Judge comment: As discussed on talk, good choice. Lots to do. Johnbod (talk) 14:05, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Lots to improve - even just some sort over geographical overview in the Residential areas and townships section instead of a list would be a vast improvement. Capital cities are core articles and so a great choice. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 15:41, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

History of music[edit]

  • Nominator - Aza24 (talk · contribs)
  • Improvements: Well, this was a lot more "elbow grease" (as Johnbod would put it) than I might have anticipated. Here's a before diff: [1] (edit here's a proper diff: [2]). One of the biggest (and most time consuming) things I did was the entire "Origins", requiring way more research than I expected. I also did the whole "Xia, Shang, Zhou and Warring States" and "Qin and Han" sections. Smaller sections include the first paragraph of the prehistoric music and (if it counts) the "Roots" section in the Classical music article, which I did in preparation for this article. Many thanks to the judges for hosting this; though outside of the contest constraints, I expect to continue working on this article—am reading quite a bit about Ancient Iranian/Persian music at the moment. Aza24 (talk) 00:34, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments: Was originally leaning to doing classical music, both because its the topic I "specialize in" and the topic of History of music is rather overwhelming, but this article is in such a horrendous state I feel I have to push myself for this. It falls for the all-too common presentation of Western Classical music as the center of the world (with everything else as an "other") and of course has barely any references and is no where near comprehensive. To be honest, while I do have various experiences in different genres (Chinese, Byzantine, Classical and Greek music in particular), I am a little worried on how to construct this article. I'm not sure there is an agreed upon concept of the "history of world music", in the same way there kind of is for the history of art, so... this should be fun... Aza24 (talk) 18:29, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Judge comment: Brave choice! 800 (was it) vpd, 48k raw bytes, 2 para lead.... dotted with cn tags, & with a source from 1897. The "outside Europe" sections are a train wreck. Crapness gold. It's going to be so high level that with appropriate sources detailed knowledge of each bit won't be necessary, just elbow grease. Johnbod (talk) 03:05, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Black Mirror[edit]

  • Nominator - Bilorv
  • Improvements: C-class to GA; changes explained at User talk:Bilorv/Black Mirror sandbox. From Special:Permalink/1025950356 to Special:Permalink/1032420872. Before my stats were 27.7% authorship, 31.7% text. Now 76.2% authorship, 59.3% text. From 34095 characters to 46443 characters (+36%). From 146 refs to 230 (250 if you count bundled refs as multiple). The stats don't convey what I hope is the scale of the changes—from a haphazard and spotty article covering some topics with too much detail and omitting basic information to a holistic view of the show, including sections explaining its premise in a way understandable to someone who's never seen the show, and a section on its cultural legacy (that it's widely credited with repopularising the anthology format for the 2010s is maybe relevant to coreness). — Bilorv (talk) 10:41, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments: Only level 5 vital, but it's on 6,000 views per day this year even without any new content for (now) two full years. Hoping to take this to GA. — Bilorv (talk) 17:57, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Judge comment: Certainly views are huge, but I think it's low on coreness, and the all-important current crapness, which will make the huge improvement that's key for this contest hard to achieve. On a quick look (& never having been a fan) I think it probably could pass GA as it stands - 147 odd refs, though understandably very webby. But give it a shot by all means. Johnbod (talk) 01:59, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • My thoughts are that a lot of it is patchwork and out-of-date; I understand it's not the best entry for the contest but I'll be working on it anyway to see if I can get Black Mirror as a good topic. It could be B-class already but it's not GA-quality now. Don't mind if anyone says it shouldn't count at all though, and I'll see if I can find a more Core article to work on. — Bilorv (talk) 12:34, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Judge comment: while I do see sustained high readership as a indication of coreness, I think it's still on the low end compared to other entries. The article is in a reasonable state, so it'll be tough to compete with other entries. FemkeMilene (talk) 19:29, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments by others: I do enjoy watching Black Mirror myself, and it's obviously a popular show, but I'd kind of agree with Johnbod that it's not that high on the core scale. The definition I'd give for core is that it should be "an article which every encyclopedia would contain". The online version of Encyclopædia Britannica does not have a dedicated article. The only page they have is a "learn about this topic" page with a single link to their Daniel Kaluuya article.[3] I can easily imagine other print encyclopedias not containing Black Mirror too, whereas a series like Star Trek would I think never be omitted. Obviously it's fantastic that you're planning to work on the topic anyway though, certainly a worthwhile exercise.  — Amakuru (talk) 15:17, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

William Lyon Mackenzie[edit]

  • Nominator: Z1720
  • Improvements: [4] Brought article to FA class
We probably won't take that into account much, especially as it was FAC at the start of the contest. A bit more analysis of changes during the contest period, please. Johnbod (talk) 13:56, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments: This Level-5 vital article is currently nominated for FAC. While its improvements might be small during the contest, I hope judges will still consider the work put into this article to get it over the FA finish line.
  • Judge comment(s): Hmmm - averaged 165 views pd in 2019. We will only consider improvements during the contest period, which with 273 refs already may well be small. FAs are not eligible - what happens if an article becomes an FA during the contest I don't know. Johnbod (talk) 21:58, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

George Brown (Canadian politician)[edit]

  • Nominator: Z1720
  • Improvements: [5] Added cited information, removed some uncited claims. Added lots of information about early life and time in New York City.
  • Comments: Another Level-5 article, this start class article has lots of uncited claims and sources in "Further reading" that should be looked at. I look forward to improving it.
  • Judge comment(s): It's clearly not start class now, probably a B. The lead is remarkably bad, failing to mention that he was (if very briefly) Premier of Western Canada, and died after being shot. Reasonable views. Johnbod (talk) 22:00, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Flower[edit]

  • Nominator: Dracophyllum
  • Improvements: Unfortunately I will be without internet for the next week'ish and so I'll just give a quick summary of what I managed to accomplish within the contest. This: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Flower&oldid=1025525434 is what it looked like before I started. I have buffed it from 52 to 120 (unique) citations (+68), although counting non-unique it sits at 154 refs now, and from 5400 words to 7110 (+1710). I wrote sections on fertilization, seed and fruit development, seed dispersal, etymology, and taxonomy from scratch. The pollination section was where I focused most of my efforts. It was blatantly wrong in some places, neglected other aspects, and was (almost) totally uncited - I even found whole paragraphs that were repeated! Now it's fully cited and has sections on pollination mechanisms (self and cross), a more concise section on allergies, and a section on hydrophily. I also added many photos, using multiple image often, and took the article from 62,166 bytes to 90,533 bytes. Needless to say, there is still much work to be done to get this article to GA or even just B class and I'm sad to not have this article totally finished, but I intend to continue working on it after TCC. If I find any time to do more work between now and the end of the comp I will try and update this but have a look at the article just in case. For now, https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Flower&oldid=1033632316, is my end oldid. Thanks, Dracophyllum 21:52, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Here is a dif link: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Flower&type=revision&diff=1033632316&oldid=1025525434&diffmode=source. Dracophyllum 21:42, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments: Many sections without in-line citations and scope for more sections such as seed dispersal, variation, etc. It's level 3 vital and got 57,000 views in the last 30 days, currently rated C-class.
  • Judge comment(s): Excellent choice. VIT3 article. At 52 citations, referencing is due a boost. Prose is also not up to scratch: too difficult in places, and it contains many lists that should probably be converted into prose. Good luck! FemkeMilene (talk) 17:32, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Judge comment(s): Certainly strong on coreness. The refs are very bitty - hardly the same ref used twice, which I tend to distrust. The pics are mostly good & well-captioned though, if over-using multiple images to my taste. Mini-galleries might be better. Johnbod (talk) 22:07, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
So much missing - needs an etymology section (including discussion of differences with blossom), Importance of floral anatomy in classical (Linnean) taxonomy etc. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 01:33, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

St. Patrick's Cathedral (Manhattan)[edit]

  • Nominator - Epicgenius (talk · contribs)
  • Improvements: Improved from C-class to GA. Special:Permalink/1024164567 was the last revision prior to the TCC, which had 18,759 characters (3,112 words) of readable prose size. Special:Permalink/1032667708 is the current revision where it was promoted as GA, which has 55,298 characters (9,229 words) of readable prose size. By character count, I increased my share of authorship from 4.9% to 91.2%. I also increased the number of references from 42 to 331.
    My improvements in this article include expanding the history section, which was poorly represented in the previous version of the article aside from site acquisition, incidents, and the most recent renovation. I also added a section about the design of the cathedral, which was only tangentially discussed in the previous version of the article. I added sections about the cathedral close, staff, and bells, and I condensed the overly detailed section on organs. Finally, I added references to existing portions of the article that were poorly sourced. Epicgenius (talk) 00:50, 9 July 2021 (UTC) Diff over contest Johnbod (talk) 21:42, 24 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments: This article is a level-5 C-class vital article in the Arts section. Currently, it is poorly organized and lacks key details on history and design. I plan to improve this as much as possible, with the goal of raising this to GA-class.
Another duff class grading - it's been "C" since January 2012, when it was half its current size. High views - c 450 was it? Johnbod (talk) 03:58, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Judge comment(s): with at least an entire section unsourced, and other parts iffily sourced (if the word iffily doesn't exist, it should), this article deserves its C-class in my opinion and massive improvement is possible. Relatively high views, but at VIT5 not the most core. FemkeMilene (talk) 17:55, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(withdrawn) Manhattan Bridge[edit]

  • Nominator - Epicgenius (talk · contribs)
  • Improvements:
  • Comments: This article is a level-5 B-class vital article in the Technology section. The History section needs a little more detail, and the subway details can probably be split and condensed. Overall, I am continuing an improvement to this page I have been making since 2017. I will almost definitely send this to GAN when I'm done.
Already 74 raw kb, with 200-ish citations, so dramatic improvement might be tough. Johnbod (talk) 04:03, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
A Bridge too Far? Still, an important landmark, and if it polishes up really well who knows... Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 01:31, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I bit off more than I can chew on this one. Perhaps next time though. Epicgenius (talk) 00:54, 9 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Manufacturing[edit]

  • Nominator - DanCherek (talk · contribs)
  • Improvements: Overall diff Didn't get as much done with this one as I'd hoped but I've greatly expanded the history section (note: some text and sources adapted from other Wikipedia articles, with appropriate attribution), added some images, and updated the table. In the process some non-ideal sources such as Investopedia were swapped out for better ones. DanCherek (talk) 18:52, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments: With thanks to the judges for the comments on my previous nomination, Color, I just came across this level-2 vital article and it's so barebones—and inaccurate in some sections, as if manufacturing didn't exist before the 1800s—that I'd like to see what I can do with it over the next month. 6.6 kB of prose, 11 shabby references, ~1k daily page views.
  • Judge comment(s): Great choice. That article is utter garbage now, and in addition to what you mentioned, would benefit from a more global perspective. I think it's not very easy to bring this up to GA level, but it should definitely be possible to make it at least twice as good as it is now. FemkeMilene (talk) 19:30, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Judge comment(s): Yes, good choice - hovers around 1k vpd. Johnbod (talk) 21:00, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Dracula[edit]

Improvements: Article prior to June 1; Sandbox version prior to June 1; and the article as of 14 July.

I rewrote the entire article from scratch—everything but the plot summary is my work. Authorship is 86% as a result of the plot summary, which required trimming (not re-writing). The Sandbox version had a review section that had to be completely rewritten, so that isn't the same Reception section as the current version of the article.
Sources were changed to only reflect the most major writers of Dracula criticism, with some supplementary material from critics of lesser significance.
Promoted to GA on July 12.
  • Comments: Another editor told me about this—I didn't know before. I really like fixing up low-quality but high-traffic articles that need a lot of work (I collect Million Awards), so this fits me like a glove! I've been working on a full re-write of Dracula—ignoring what was there before and writing it from scratch. End goal is definitely to take it to FAC. It might be hard to list the changes, but they'll be very easy to see—it’s a full article rewrite and I'm doing it all in my Sandbox and will simply replace the extant article when it’s in good shape! If the judges have any comments, or this article isn't eligible, just let me know and I'll withdraw. Thanks so much for doing this—it’s lovely (and motivating). — ImaginesTigers (talk) 21:44, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • More comments: After looking at what other people have done above, I should probably describe the article's current deficiencies? So the main one is that, for one of the most famous books ever written, it’s got very little in way of academic referencing. The section about influences was so, so problematic—Dracula has a lot of influences, but Vlad the Impaler is not usually considered one of them anymore. There was no section about the novel's main themes (needed), no acknowledgement of how sexual it is, no acknowledgement of the psychoanalytic perspectives on it or of its reflection on industrialism and capitalism. I really don't think the article has many redeeming qualities in its current state. — ImaginesTigers (talk) 22:09, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Judge comments: Wow! 3,300 vpd, article now rather underrated as a "C". Loads of refs, but also lots of tags, & ref quality could certainly be improved. Decent coreness I think. Johnbod (talk) 23:00, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    It definitely was C class when I started editing it (you can see that here), but eventually realised that the changes I was making needed to be more drastic, so I moved into my sandbox and haven't touched the main article since. But, for fairness, when I post the end-diffs, the starting point will be what the article looked like on June 1 (if that's okay with you). — ImaginesTigers (talk) 23:21, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it needs to be that. Johnbod (talk) 00:05, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nut (fruit)[edit]

  • Nominator: Cwmhiraeth (talk · contribs)
  • Improvements: I proposed a merger of "Nut (fruit)" with "Nut (food)" and, there being no objections, merged the two articles. I have done substantial work on the combined article, improving it from this to this. The main section is in the form of a table and this means it is not included in the page size figures. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:04, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments: I see plenty of scope for improving this article which is on the "Core" list. It has an uncited section and only three references in total. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 13:08, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Judge comments: Remarkably short. Gets 750-odd vpd. Cas liber will know what is missing better than I. Starts with the rather ridiculous hatnote "
    Not to be confused with Nut (food).
    " - I realize many of these are botanically seeds, but I wonder if something can be done with that very poor (but much less viewed) article? Strong on coreness and crapness. Johnbod (talk) 14:46, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I think I will propose merging Nut (food) into Nut (fruit) as I see no merits in separating these two aspects. The botanical meaning of the term as opposed to its common meaning can have a section, as is done in Fruit and Vegetable. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:16, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
That merge seems like a good idea at first glance. Both articles are in bad shape, so this shouldn't affect the contest to much FemkeMilene (talk) 11:57, 12 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Dili[edit]

  • Nominator: Chipmunkdavis (talk · contribs)
  • Improvements: Diff of changes: [6] Before:[7] After:[8]
    Johnbod's intuition on the difficulty of finding sources was well-founded, but I've found enough to substantially expand the article. In raw stats, it has expanded from 20 kB (prose: 6672 B, 1052 words) to 81 kb (prose: 41 kB, 6792 words), and from 18 references to 74. Qualitatively, I would say the new sources are generally of a much higher quality than the previous ones. The History section was taken from short and completely unsourced to a much more comprehensive and sourced length. Geography and Administration was split and each separately expanded. New Economy and Infrastructure sections added, as well as a nascent Culture section. Other previous prose sections expanded with new sources. A proper lead added, as well as a few images. As for the most important qualitative yardstick for East Timor articles, I reckon this is now on a par with the de.wiki version.
    This was the first time I've delved into a city article in this detail, so I'd appreciate any feedback for further improvements that can be made. Thanks for running this contest, it was good fun even though I wasn't able to spend as much time on it as I wanted. Best, CMD (talk) 18:29, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments: A small city, but a national capital. Lots of key information simply not there, a lack of sources even for the content that is there (no sources at all in the History section!), and good models in nearby capitals which are Good Articles.
  • Judge comments: Relatively low on coreness (VIT5, 233 page views), but certainly eligible. Ideal amount of horribleness to start with; even a single sentence lede! FemkeMilene (talk) 08:10, 12 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:The_Core_Contest/Entries/Junejuly2021_archive

Leave a Reply