• See archives of past competition for inspiration: 2007, 2012a, 2012b, 2013, 2014, 2015 , 2017, 2021, 2022, 2023, 2024, 2025.

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 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.

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

• Nominator: ເສລີພາບ
• Improvements: (start state + improvement diff)
• Comments: A level 3-vital article at C class. Current sources are old and inappropriate (this is a primary study from the 1960s currently being cited). There are clear gaps: Prevention makes zero mention of limiting environmental exposure despite wearing a hat and putting on sunscreen being one of the best things you can do to prevent cancer. Management has a section on laser therapy, but no section for hormonal therapy and targeted therapy which are pillars of treatment more significant than laser therapy, and this lack contributes to the misperception that many people have that cancer medications are all chemotherapy. The psychological impacts of cancer on patients and caregivers are one of its most important dimensions, and deserves its own section or subsection. The entire article uses the words "stage" and "grade" to refer to cancer (e.g. "Survival rates vary by cancer type and by the stage at which it is diagnosed") but it never defines these words and only links to them once. These terms are fundamental to how cancer is discussed and understood, and they should have a brief subsection to define what they mean. ເສລີພາບ (talk) 20:57, 29 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Unfortunately I ran out of time to work on the article beyond overhauling the Prevention section and some minor copyediting. I will continue to edit this article over the next few months, however, to try to improve it. It is a major (hopefully tractable) task to determine how this article should be structured to avoid redundancy. ເສລີພາບ (talk) 00:38, 1 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Great choice, great analysis of what's wrong with the article. That lead is incredibly long, and quite difficult to parse. A typical long featured article would have 4 or 5 paragraphs of around 400 words total. Some dated stuff there too; I don't think screening for breast cancer is controversial still, only the age range for it. Some geographical bias towards the US. The 2020 World Cancer Report might be a good source, even if it falls just outside of WP:MEDDATE with its 2020 publication. It's a big topic. User:Ajpolino has been working on the big cancers in recent years. They've been inactive this year, but might be able to give pointers perhaps if they have a bit of time. When in doubt, WT:MED has a whole group of helpful editors too. Keep an eye out of WP:understandability given the wide audience this article has. Best of luck. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 20:51, 30 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• User:ເສລີພາບ: are you familiar with MOS:MEDORDER? Usually these medical articles are structured quite similarly. You can also find inspiration from lung cancer and prostate cancer, which are both FAs. In solidarity, —Femke (talk) 🐦 06:47, 2 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  I was not familiar with MOS:MEDORDER, thank you for linking it. I had tried looking at the other cancer articles, but a problem I ran into was with cancer being a collection of diseases, it is easy to restate the same basic facts about skin cancer, tobacco, etc., in different sections. But it should be workable. ເສລີພາບ (talk) 05:59, 6 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• Great choice - I agree with both comments above (nom+Femke). Johnbod (talk) 18:30, 1 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
• Thank you for choosing such an important article. I guess you will be considering the pros and cons of using excerpts, for example when you update the research section. https://www.economist.com/briefing/2025/07/17/the-world-is-making-impressive-progress-averting-cancer Chidgk1 (talk) 06:04, 5 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
• If you're a member of a good library I thoroughly reccomend The Emperor of All Maladies. Unfortunately my copy is on loan to a friend right now. JacobTheRox^{(talk | contributions)} 18:22, 12 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hmmm. That's a very long book that mainly covers a very specific moment in the history of cancer research, several decades ago. Johnbod (talk) 21:55, 12 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• Nominator: Pietrus1
• Improvements: (start state + improvement diff)
• Comments: Level 3 vital start class article that is evidently in a poor state all around and there are more comprehensive treatments in other language wikipedias to facilitate finding suitable sources. Pietrus1 (talk) 15:42, 14 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, that article is tiny at the moment! There's some good sources out there, for instance on inclusion by the Global Disability Alliance, this WHO report on equity, and I imagine there will be scientific literature around the legal aspects, such as around the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. The article has no images, and some of the images might be fairly straightforward, but good to visualise people with invisible disabilities too, to counter stereotype around wheelchairs. Great choice. Curious to see if pageviews go up when there's more content. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 16:23, 29 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• Crikey! Only 83 views pd now. Loads to do. Be careful to include global outlook & sourcing. A definitions section certainly needed, then a good few links. Johnbod (talk) 18:36, 1 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• Nominator: vigilantcosmicpenguin
• Improvements: (start state + improvement diff)
  • → /
  • 300 words → 6500 words
  • This was an interesting article to work on, and I'm glad to improve our coverage of food types. I've never written about a topic this broad, but I found it reasonably simple to get all the key points out of the sources. Given the amount of relevant literature that currently exists, I believe I have made the sourcing as comprehensive as I can. (To quote one of the sources, flatbreads are "little documented in the bread literature of the loaf bread countries"—so this also counts for countering systemic bias!) From an initial state that provided almost no useful information, I have added substantial information about what flatbreads are, how they are made, how they are eaten, and where they are eaten—while being sure to avoid the cruft that's so common in food articles. As I said earlier, I also split List of flatbreads into a separate article, which I'm surprised didn't exist already. It's my first time making a standalone list, and I'm quite satisfied with the result. — Vigilant Cosmic Penguin 🐧 (talk | contribs) 04:14, 1 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
• Comments: 5, . I believe this is a very core article as flatbreads are very widespread in human cultures, and Category:Flatbreads includes over 100 sub-articles. The current article is very weak for such a big concept, with only five paragraphs and a poor-quality list. There is almost no information about what flatbread actually is, or the ways it is consumed. I have spent a few months working on sub-articles, so I am familiar with the relevant academic sourcing for this broad-concept article. — Vigilant Cosmic Penguin 🐧 (talk | contribs) 02:48, 16 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I love flatbread, great choice. I hope this rewrite will be accompanied by some cooking and trying out these different varieties. Would it make sense to split of the list into a different list article, and include a smaller properly sourced list here? Would be good to get an explanation in how they differ from pancakes and 'normal'(?) risen bread. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 18:15, 29 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, I plan on creating a separate list article, while the main article will just have a qualitative description of how flatbreads are classified. This will be fairly simple as several sources lay out this information. I also have sources at hand that explain the distinction from other foods, as you suggest. And you're right about trying out the different varieties—as I've worked on articles about various flatbreads, I've been challenging myself to try to eat all of them. :D — Vigilant Cosmic Penguin 🐧 (talk | contribs) 04:39, 30 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I worry this is just too broad a subject, with not much to say beyond expanded and commentated lists. Johnbod (talk) 19:20, 4 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• Nominator: vigilantcosmicpenguin
• Improvements: (start state + improvement diff)
  • → ?
  • 700 words → 5400 words
  • This expansion is not quite up to GA level, but I think I still did a very solid expansion, especially considering I spent less time on this than the other entry. The challenge with this topic was that it's a broad topic, encompassing both corn and flour tortillas, so I had to make a few judgement calls about what's relevant to the topic and what sources to check; there might be some details that I left out. I also split the history section into History of the tortilla, and the history section of the main article needs some more editing to have the right weight. The most fun part about this project was that I got to take a photo specifically for the infobox, as there were no free images including both corn and flour tortillas. I'm no studio photographer, but I think my image is an improvement. To all those who "whole-heartedly agree that the concept of tortillas is important", I hope this article does it justice. :P — Vigilant Cosmic Penguin 🐧 (talk | contribs) 04:14, 1 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
• Comments: 5, . In addition to the main Flatbread article, I believe I will manage to expand a sub-article within the timeframe. Tortillas are also an important and fairly broad concept, and the article is just as short as Flatbread, so there is a lot of room for expansion. — Vigilant Cosmic Penguin 🐧 (talk | contribs) 02:48, 16 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

^{I whole-heartedly agree that the concept of tortillas is important and thank you for your service. ⹃Maltazarian ᚾparley${\displaystyle \lor }$investigateᛅ 14:37, 2 April 2026 (UTC)}[reply]

• Nominator: User:TheNuggeteer
• Improvements: (start state + improvement diff)
• Comments: Level 4 article. The national hero of the Philippines that is known for writing novels that infuriated Spaniards there. I have three books on him and have GAed related topics (Paciano Rizal, Trial and execution of José Rizal). The article is pretty long but is messy and has a lot of places needing expansion.

• Nominator: MallardTV
• Improvements: (start: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Human%20settlement&diff=1354790673&oldid=1348141915 + https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Human%20settlement&diff=1357061205&oldid=1357060695) the formatting on these is weird, I had to finish up on mobile so to being out of town and it isn’t my cup of tea.

  Improved improvement diff

• This was fun to work on. I couldn't get it reviews in time but ORES rates it FA (which doesn't mean much), so I think it could probably get at least GA.
• Comments: 2, . This is a high importance topic, but the article is in very poor shape. The structure is unfocused and reads more like a collection of loosely related sections than a coherent overview. Core concepts such as types of settlements, their functions, and how they are studied in geography and archaeology are not clearly explained. The lead is too basic and does not summarize the topic at an appropriate level. Large portions of the article are either overly general or rely on scattered country specific examples that do not build a clear global picture. Sourcing is inconsistent, and some sections feel underdeveloped or disconnected from the main topic. This article needs a full rewrite with a clearer structure, stronger sourcing, and more comprehensive coverage of the subject. MallardTV ^{Talk to me!} 02:26, 25 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Great choice Chidgk1 (talk) 17:17, 29 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Ah... only a matter of time someone would nominate this article. I think a major issue with this article is the "statistics" section; it suffers from the typical "[x] in [country]" structure issue. I mean, for Russia, it's just "There are various types of inhabited localities in Russia". Truly a line. Moreover, the section seems to focus largely on Western countries; what about countries in, say, Africa or South America? Really looking forward to seeing this article get revamped! Icepinner (Come to Hakurei Shrine!) 10:47, 31 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Tons to do for what is no doubt a homework favourite. Johnbod (talk) 19:22, 4 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I think you've got the wrong diff selected, it's only showing the most recent edit which adds some wikilinks. Instead you want this diff. {{GearsDatapacks|talk|contribs}} 08:44, 1 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The final diff I made the the article before the contest window closed was the diff I liked to, but thanks for pointing this out. MallardTV ^{Talk to me!} 17:21, 3 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• Nominator: Guettarda (talk)
• Improvements: (start state + improvement diff)
• Comments: 4, . It's an area of the world that was extremely important historically, really the place European colonial empires were born. But it's unbalanced, full of collections of anecdotes, poorly sourced, and a hundred other problems you'd find in an article of this sort and age. Definitely biting off more than I can chew, but it's a first step. Guettarda (talk) 16:44, 25 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• I can see problems controlling the size - I think it's 97K bytes already. It doesn't look too bad now, but no doubt there's lots to do. Johnbod (talk) 03:24, 3 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• Nominator: DAP389
• Improvements: (start state + improvement diff)
• Comments: 5, . This is among the most famous Impressionist paintings and, arguably, artist Gustave Caillebotte's best known work, though admittedly not my favorite of his. It's spent most of its history in the possession of the Caillebotte estate until the 1950s, and academic analysis confirming its significance has only spawned within the last 40 or 50 years. Lots of room for improvement, not least of which for tone; the article reads like an essay at the moment. It also lacks structure and engagement with the scholarly literature. I intend to bring this to GA and maybe FA as a long-term goal. This will be my first entry in this contest, cheers! DAP 💅 19:25, 26 March 2026 (UTC}

• 121 views a day. A nice small subject! Johnbod (talk) 19:24, 4 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• Nominator: Coeusin
• Improvements: (start state + improvement diff)
• Comments: 5, . Improving this article has been on my radar for the longest time. It has had a refimprove tag since August 2023, is too big (13.5k words), undersourced, bearing a lot of factual mistakes and misconceptions, and has some really poorly-written sections, so a lot of things to work on. It is also disjointed and repeats a lot of information. It is definitely not deserving of B-class today, but hopefully I'll be able to bring it to GA-status or close to that. This is my first time participating :) Coeusin (talk) 11:43, 1 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nominated for GA-status. Improving this article was as hard a process as I expected it to be (very!). Coeusin (talk) 11:57, 25 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent selection @Coeusin:. Paraguay is probably my second favorite South American country to learn about only behind the countries of the Guiana Shield. Jon698 (talk) 17:53, 26 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• Nominator: MCE89
• Improvements: (start state + improvement diff)
  • → /
  • This was a very fun article to work on, and I'm really happy with where it's gotten to. I'm particularly happy with the new images — I couldn't believe my luck when I realised that one of the few dozen people who have stepped foot on the island this century had uploaded all of their pictures under a free licence! I've also achieved my most important goal: increasing the total number of pictures of penguins from 0 to 6. The article is now at FAC and has picked up a couple of supports so far, so fingers crossed it'll be an FA soon. MCE89 (talk) 10:36, 1 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
• Comments: 5, The Heard Island and McDonald Islands Territory is an Australian external territory and World Heritage Site in the Southern Ocean. The article is in pretty poor shape, with multiple unreferenced sections and some not great sourcing. It's also sorely in need of an update to reflect more recent research on the impact of climate change on the islands. And most importantly, the article currently has no images at all of the islands' famous penguins! My goal is to work towards hopefully getting this to FA. MCE89 (talk) 14:24, 3 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

As someone with a niche interest in both tiny islands and quirky territories I have to say that's a great choice. Especially glad the good penguins of Heard and McDonald are getting some appreciation after the recent unprovoked hostile actions that targeted their economy. ⹃Maltazarian ^{ᚾparley${\displaystyle \lor }$investigateᛅ} 15:25, 3 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• Nominator: JacobTheRox
• Improvements: (start state + improvement diff).
• Comments: FFA, intend to get back to FAC by end of contest. Think this is achievable as article is quite well cited, just a bit incoherent and jumbled.
• Update: this has turned into a bit of a megaproject for me. The article started at 5400 words, with little academic citing and no clear structure. Brunel is one of the most important people in the Industrial Revolution, or ever, and I hope the now-12k word article does him some justice. It is nearly ready to take to FAC, I just need to add more books for diversification and find how I can trim it down as currently it is quite long. I think this is probably the best article I've written so thanks to the judges and other participants for encouraging me to take part.

• Nominator: JacobTheRox
• Improvements: (start state + diff)
• Comments: I have finished my work on this article. This included expanding this key article from 6681 to 9250 words, citing a huge proportion of it, replacing a large number of unreliable or blatantly biassed sources, and populating with new images and alt text. Unfortunately, due to irl commitments and a heatwave, I have been unable to bring the article officially to GA/FA. I am going on Wikibreak for most of June but will see if I can pursue GA and FA over the summer.

• Being "vital" is not actually a requirement here. This gets c. 220 vies a day, which isn't bad. Will need a ton of refs before FAC, as a minimum. Johnbod (talk) 19:18, 4 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Johnbod: – please may you have a look at this article now in the context of FAC? I'm worried that it's too heavily based on Wolmar and Jackson, but I can fix that using other more detailed books when I have the time. JacobTheRox^{(talk | contributions)} 22:39, 30 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  The biggest problem with trying to get an FA on this article is that it isn't well-covered by sources at the right level of detail. There are very few sources that give a good overview of the company – most are at least specific to one region in one era, which means it becomes difficult to know what warrants inclusion. This one is my 3rd on here and the one that's most likely to not work out. JacobTheRox^{(talk | contributions)} 22:04, 4 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• Nominator: Mufti Abrar Aziz
• Improvements: ([1] + [2])
• Comments: It is a level-5 vital article and a stub. My plan is to upgrade it to at least C or B. I will add some detailed sections with appropriate references.

The article is still very short but I added some more information about the cloud's physical properties. As Femke pointed out, there is very less amount of material online about this.

With around 1000 monthly pageviews and 11 interlanguage links, this may be one of the less core articles in the contest so far, but the potential to improve this stub are immense. Pageviews can pick up when quality improves. Not too easy to find sources on the topic, and some seem to be talking about multiple G-Clouds? Other still call this cloud the Galactic cloud [3]. Would be cool if there was an artist impression available, as I'm not sure I quite understand what makes the cloud a cloud, how big one of these clouds is, and how we know it's not another cloud. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 16:07, 5 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• Nominator: MSK and PARAKANYAA
• Improvements: (start state + improvement diff)
• Comments: C-class level 5 vital article. Mengistu Haile Mariam was the dictator of Ethiopia. During his leadership, he led the Ethiopian Red Terror. We're planning on bringing the article to GA, and if we have a lot of extra time maybe FAC. The article is missing information on his personal life, a political beliefs section, and a legacy section; additionally there are some NPOV issues in the article (By 1990, the Soviet Union had all but ended its support for Mengistu's regime) that will need fixing. He, along with Haile Selassie I, are probably the 2 most important individuals in recent Ethiopian history. msk 03:27, 8 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• 700+ views a day. Still alive, but is he still in Zimbabwe? Unclear. Plenty to do. Johnbod (talk) 16:49, 12 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• Nominator: TStein
• Improvements: (Start state + Improvement diff)

• Comments: Magnetic field is a level 4 article that is of top importance for 2 WikiProjects (Physics and Electrical Engineering). Too, it has a significant impact on a wide variety of disciplines and has wide general appeal to non-technical audiences. On week days, it gets around 900 views per day. Currently, magnetic field is way too sprawling of an article which makes it difficult for a viewer to find what they are looking for. In trying to serve at least 3 different audiences (Physicists, electrical engineers, and the general public) it serves none well. The goal of this project is to: 1. reorganize article to make it easier for all audiences to find what they are looking for, 2. Make article more accessible to general non-technical audience, 3. improve electrical engineering portions including better references. TStein (talk) 15:54, 9 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Improvement goal: start with too technical warning tag want to improve to or higher

• As a physicist by training, I'm really glad to see such a fundamental article included here. In addition to the improvement you described above, there's some oddities. Why do the boxed equations all say 'SI units': that should be evident without explicit mention. The common formulae is completely uncited. The biggest challenge is going to be understandability. The article isn't terrible, but I imagine you will find more intuition when you use first and second-year textbooks. Those might also be the sources to help you organise the article better. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 09:31, 14 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  Thanks for the comments. I never would have thought about boxed equations saying SI units. Citing formulas was definitely on my list. Thanks for the suggestion to use more introductory textbooks. TStein (talk) 14:02, 14 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

A technical article, nice! I do agree that the article is very, very chaotic and disorganised... makes it overwhelming to navigate the article. Icepinner (Come to Hakurei Shrine!) 16:02, 9 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I am still not 100% sure how I will tackle the article. The term is used for 2 different vector fields that are treated in 2 different ways depending on the discipline using it. Too, there is no good order to introduce topics. Organizing one aspect of the topic inevitably makes another aspect out of order and vice versa. TStein (talk) 17:55, 13 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm yeah. I can't really comment on it further since I take physics at a high school level (so my knowledge of magnetic fields is limited to electromagnetic induction at most), but I do believe in you :) Icepinner (Come to Hakurei Shrine!) 02:30, 14 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• Nominator: Phlsph7
• Improvements: (start state + improvement diff)
• Comments: A level 4 vital article with close to a million page views last year. The article relies excessively on quotations and primary sources, using them to support interpretative claims that require secondary sources. It has issues with WP:PROPORTION, including an overemphasis of historical aspects, especially UK and US authors, with lengthy subsections on the views of minor figures. Other topics to address are the inclusion of important thinkers and traditions that are omitted, discussing key types of agnosticism that are currently missing, explaining practical consequences of being agnostic, showing how agnosticism relates to similar views, and balancing the criticism section with a discussion of supporting arguments. The article currently has a readable prose size of 2840 words, so there is room for expansion; I hope to keep it below or around 8000 words. For more detailed comments, see Talk:Agnosticism#Changes_to_the_article. Phlsph7 (talk) 16:49, 9 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  Ok, I have implemented most of the changes I had planned to, but I'm open to more suggestions. Phlsph7 (talk) 17:15, 2 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  I updated the improvement diff to include the changes form the successful GA review. Thanks to Vigilantcosmicpenguin for the detailed comments! Phlsph7 (talk) 07:54, 1 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

There does seem to be a wide room for expansion. I like that you have a detailed plan. TStein (talk) 17:04, 9 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• Hmm. Lots to do, for sure. Johnbod (talk) 16:54, 12 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• Nominator: Chidgk1 Theosch
• Improvements: (start state + improvement diff)
• Comments: 3 Not sure yet how much, if anything, I will improve this. It's in a fair state already and I hope I may be able to get moving outside rather than looking at a screen. Would love if someone else would join me - in the unlikely event we win you can keep the money and fame. I think if there are two of us we could motivate each other and it wouldn't take too much work for us to get it back to "good" condition. It just needs the tyres pumping up and a few drops of oil!

• Lovely choice. I don't think the article talks yet about the physical and mental health effects of cycling. Dutch and Danish children often score as the happiest in the world, which is hypothesised to come from the freedom cycling gives them. Using bikes for commutes also had significant positive impacts, especially for older people. In other places the article is too promotional towards bikes. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 10:36, 12 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  Too promotional towards bikes - how is that even possible?!!! I suppose I could add a personal winge about the solid tyres on rental bikes here giving me backache from the poor road surfaces. Re health there is Cycling#Health effects so maybe I’ll just link to that. Re expansion if I can find a source I’ll try and be a little more specific than “common” or “less common” types, for example it would be interesting to know what proportion of sales are electric nowadays. Chidgk1 (talk) 16:44, 12 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I've done some work, mainly separating text related to the bicycle itself and to the use of bicycles, i.e. cycling. Theosch (talk) 09:37, 24 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks have added you - hope that is OK and hope you are able to do more Chidgk1 (talk) 05:10, 27 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• Nominator: AirshipJungleman29
• Improvements: (start state + improvement diff)
• Comments: Entered this before but was never able to make significant changes. Hopefully this'll be the year, if I get time. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 13:22, 14 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• Nominator:CSGinger14
• Improvements: (Start state + End state*)
• * Minus these edits in between (thanks to those editors):

• (10:34, May 25)
• (1:56-2:00 May 22)
• (13:36 May 20)
• (7:51 May 17)
• (16:31-34 May 14)

CSGinger14 (talk) 03:18, 2 June 2026 (UTC) (Actually yesterday but I forgot to sign it)[reply]

Summary: Added several sections and expanded others amounting to roughly 6500 words of additional text, found some sourcing to back up existing claims, revised others, performed widespread copy-editing and expanded along new and pre-existing lines. Unfortunately finals seasons kind of killed me this year so I didn't get a chance to do as much as I'd hoped. Also had two other articles I've worked on get brought up for review for GA status, so had to devote some time to that as well. Still making revisions, plan to get it up to 10,000 words and nominate it for GA Status.

• Comments: 4,

• First Diff: Not sure how often I need to be doing this. Nothing major here
• Edit: Progress up to this point, in a much better manner of presentation - it should be noted that there were a few intermediate edits by others, but no major changes in content and presentation

• Final Diff I'll share before the end of the competition. This has been fun, looking forward to seeing everyone's final products!

CSGinger14 (talk) 08:50, 30 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Was wracking my brain trying to decide what page I should work on, and figured this'd be a good place to start. Contemporarily relevant and lacking in several key areas (particularly its history and environment sections), though I must give a hand to the editors who contributed the separate sections on challenges related to climate change / human activity. Plan on adding / combining (with additions) several sections, on top of some figures related to the ongoing conflict in the Middle East. One of several that I'm considering, not sure if I should / could nominate them in advance. CSGinger14 (talk) 20:54, 14 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• Might as well share some of my plans as of now, will leave the rest a surprise:

  Expand History to cover:

  • Trade routes

  • Expansion of this section to cover typical goods carried between different localities by sea at different times in different places - Building a table for this, though it may take a while
  • Trying to decide if I want to make a

  • Coastal migrations

  • Quite a number of these happened in this region from prehistory onwards. Figure it would be good to discuss who they were, where they went, how they got there, etc.

  Economic activity in the region today

  • Oil / Natural Gas drilling

  • Significant environmental concerns here. In any case makes up a pretty fair share of the economic activity in and revenue generated by this region

  • Fishing

  • Unfortunately much of the basin is on the verge of being an ecological dead zone, would be good to explore

  • Privateering

  • Already covered in another article, but giving a bit of attention to it to help readers onwards wouldn't be a terrible thing

  • Shipping

  • This partly falls in with the Major ports and Piracy sections, both of which should be developed with this in mind

  Work on Geography:

  • Clean up major ports section, give some description of what's going on in each nation
  • Geological history

  • Progression from Cretaceous to present-day
  • Explanation, visual or otherwise, or the modern vs. recent prehistoric coastline

  • Some description of historic vs modern human settlement patterns given geographic (i.e topological) constraints

  Climate:

  • Have already done a bit of work here explaining the Monsoon winds. Discovered that that article could definitely use a touch up, likely a splitting up into multiple distinct pages by region. Would probably be a good entry here as well, given that it's a level-4 Vital Article.

  '

  Will save the rest for those who come to check out my progress at Arabian Sea!

  '

  Hope everyone's doing well,

  CSGinger14 (talk) 05:07, 5 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• CSGinger14, no need to keep us updated mid-competition, we'll start judging at the end. If you like to show other competitors diffs to generate more conversation, that's perfectly fine too, but most folks won't update until the end. You can show one big diff in the end (which spans all the diffs from start to end). —Femke 🐦 (talk) 11:06, 4 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• Just a quick note that at 10,000 words some GA reviewers may ask you to summarise better per WP:PAGESIZE. I typically strive for 6,000 to 8,000 words for a core article. In solidarity, —Femke (talk) 🐦 06:44, 2 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• Nominator: Flurrious
• Improvements: (start state + improvement diff)
• Comments: 2, . Some sections are uneven, with the Philippines section over covered. Would move it to Philippine literature, but it's uncited and already represented there. Film coverage could use expansion. Plan to resolve the add more citations and essay-like tags. Flurrious (talk) 00:45, 15 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• Yes, pretty ropey! Lots to do. Dance seems rather underweight, and probably music. Johnbod (talk) 00:51, 15 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• Nominator: Jon698
• Improvements: (25 April 2026 + improvement diff) Over 11,000 bytes of text added so far and I still have a lot sources to look through. I have currently expanded the Etymology and Economy sections, started a Demographics section, and working on the History section. Final result: 14,592 bytes of authorship by me and 13,991 bytes added.
• Comments: Vital-4, start-class, and lots of available sources. I will begin work on this either tomorrow or on Friday. I just learned about this contest and I am excited to participate. Jon698 (talk) 04:25, 23 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• And we're excited to have you! The article doesn't really explain yet why it's such an important city. I see it's vital 4 and has an impressive 61 interlanguage links, but the lead needs to shine and explain. It's now using some catholic jargon (bishopric, titular see), which might hide the importance of the city. The arabic version of the article has some uncited information, which might form some inspiration for you source search. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 20:19, 26 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• Nice to see a city article. I agree with Femke's statement that the current state doesn't explain the city's importance. The history section might be the most important, so it'd be best to find some sources that can explain the roles of the city instead of just a scattered list of unrelated events. And the excessive details about the Catholic see would probably be better suited for a different article. Having written about a city for last year's core contest, I've found that the biggest challenge is finding the right level of breadth without excessive detail. But even just focusing on a few sections could result in a significant improvement from the article's start state. — Vigilant Cosmic Penguin 🐧 (talk | contribs) 21:01, 26 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
• Well the truth of the matter is that it isn't such an important city these days, but sometimes was in historical times. Probably the Catholic see should be floated off to its own article. Johnbod (talk) 23:56, 26 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• Nominator: Flurrious
• Improvements: (start state + improvement diff)
• Comments: 2, . Hope to improve the sourcing and add a history section. Flurrious (talk) 16:42, 26 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• That definition! Why do we always start articles in such a complicated way? And the best games are cooperative games, which are excluded by the definition. One-player games are also excluded. Video games are computer- or microprocessor-controlled games -> Again, such a convoluted definition. In addition to missing sourcing, there's also opportunities to improve the images. There must be something we can use to illustrate video games, surely. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 20:03, 26 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Good choice - Wargame could be briefly mentioned Chidgk1 (talk) 15:10, 11 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• Nominator: Chilicave and VerdictByLogic
• Improvements: (start state + improvement diff)
• Comments: Hey! This is a level 5 article that seems to need expansion, better organization of lengthy lists, and missing a few references. I'm also late to this, but could I perhaps ask on the article talk page and/or Wikiproject Hinduism to see if anyone is interested in helping out?

• Lovely choice! And yes, please do. When an article topic is sensitive or contentious, is always a good plan to reach out to others on the talk page to have diverse perspectives on the article content. If you find someone interested to work substantially on the article, you can add them as a second nominator. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 06:36, 28 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  appreciate it! Chilicave (talk) 01:59, 30 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• Needs a good deal imo, though the quality of what's there seems ok on a quick scan. Don't worry too much about starting late. Johnbod (talk) 01:45, 28 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• Nominator: Hawkeye7
• Improvements: (start state + diff)
• Comments: Level 5 Vital Article about a scientist. Rated C class for large amounts of uncited text. Article also lacks balance, concentrating on one aspect (albeit the one that netted him the Nobel Prize). Some factual errors. Having obtained a copy of his biography, I have started improving the article, and it should go to featured, assuming I can get a slot.

• A big topic with 80 interlanguage links. A surprisingly low pageview number (10k pageviews in 2024), curious if it will go up measurably after you're done. You know what you're doing, so best of luck! —Femke 🐦 (talk) 16:14, 4 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• Well it is done now. Roughly doubled in size from 2,088 words to 4,241. Not enough for DYK, so forwarded to GA for review. Corrected a few errors along the way. I gathered the material for this article when I worked on Sir John Anderson back in 2022. It is ironic that the subject that drew me to write about them - nuclear weapons - was not covered at all in the original version! Apologies for accidentally rolling you back when I wanted to thank you. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 04:47, 6 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• Nominator: Gladdening
• Improvements: (start state + improvement diff)
• Comments: A level-4 vital article rated start-class that is mostly unsourced or dubiously sourced. It had a more citations needed template since 2015 and an expansion template since 2009. Without the unsourced material the article is arguably a stub, which is shocking for a cooking technique used for thousands of years in many, if not most, cultures. I've already started editing the article before this nomination (but during the contest period) because I was unsure if I could pull it off as a new editor, but I'm happy to be part of this and hope that that doesn't mess anything up!

• That's a lovely one! Very keen to learn more about the chemical reactions (like what is a crust that you get from frying, what is that maillard reaction Masterchef goes on about. In terms of types: is air frying one? What is shallow frying vs pan frying? A section of equipment? Or would that be part of the types as most types are done with a specific device. If you create a section on the types of oils and fats used in frying, you can touch on the controversy with seed oils vs butter. You might consider an environmental impact section (production of oils and disposal), or weave that information into a section of types of oils. Loads to think about. I wish you the best of luck, and do feel free to ask questions here or at WP:WikiProject Food. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 16:51, 4 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  Thanks for the encouragement and suggestions! Gladdening✉ 09:38, 7 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• Could be great - I'm sure you will avoid the usual WP approach of an endless list of the favourite fried foods of different countries. Johnbod (talk) 00:34, 5 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  Johnbod, I find this very dismissive of my meemaw twice removed's regional doughnut recipe she invented in '92 and will be promptly withdrawing from this contest. Jokes aside, don't worry; I won't :) Gladdening✉ 09:43, 7 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• Would a sound file be appropriate? Chidgk1 (talk) 15:16, 11 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
• Nice! I'm glad to see another contestant doing a broad food article; this is an article that I've noticed could use some improvement. First thing I'll note is the scope of the subject, which encompasses deep-frying, shallow-frying, pan-frying, and stir-frying. In fact, the second sentence of the lead is about pan-frying, but pan-frying is never described any further. And what about sautéing? The article has a section about it but no citation saying that sautéing is a type of frying... So I think the biggest challenge might be figuring out how to be sufficiently broad, in both source gathering and writing. Scoping reviews of the literature, such as scholarly encyclopedia chapters, are the type of sourcing you should be looking for. — Vigilant Cosmic Penguin 🐧 (talk | contribs) 18:57, 11 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• Nominator: Flurrious
• Improvements: (start state + improvement diff)
• Comments: 4, . The history section could be expanded and an international dimensions section could be added, along with many more references. Flurrious (talk) 21:50, 16 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• A 'more references needed' tag since 2007! A lot to do. The article isn't bad in terms of giving space to economic pluralism, but I think the uncited bit about trade unions is implying a negative effect of them, which is not supported my modern scholarship if I understand the debate correctly. Good to get predictives from around the globe, for instance the types of economic policies China and South America are using. Late entry, but that's fine! —Femke 🐦 (talk) 08:48, 17 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• Nominator: Phlsph7
• Improvements: (start state + improvement diff)
• Comments: My 2nd entry for this year's contest: a level-5 vital article with a little over 350,000 page views last year. With only 550 words readable prose size, the original article left out many essential topics, focused exclusively on deductive reasoning, and made various problematic claims, including in the lead. I expanded and rewrote it to also cover non-deductive reasoning, different types of premises, their normative criteria, how they can cause fallacies, how to identify them, and what role they play in different fields. For more detailed comments on the changes, see Talk:Premise#Changes_to_the_article. Phlsph7 (talk) 08:34, 29 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• Nominator: EasternShah
• Improvements: (start state + improvement diff)
• Comments: Level-3 vital article. Rumi was a very prominent Sufi and poet, with both his religious and prose/poetry having a large impact on Islamicate literature. Currently, the article is relatively short in comparison to his prominence, this article can easily reach 9000 words (stopping there and not at 15k because of MOS:SIZERULE) with various sub-articles sprouting from it. The sources should only, or largely, be academic in nature but there are various news citations.

Procedural withdrawal — Since this nominator is currently banned, the judges have procedurally withdrawn this entry. If the nominator is unbanned in the course of this contest's iteration, they are welcome to resume participation. – Aza24 (talk) 22:32, 23 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• Gets over 2,000 views a day. Knowing nothing of the subject, on a quick look seems ok, but under-referenced. At 90 kbytes now, the need for a longer article does not shout out to me, but who knows. Category:Poetry by Rumi seems small, and only one prose work has an article it seems. Johnbod (talk) 16:39, 12 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• Nominator: Kinnimeyu
• Improvements: (start state + improvement diff)
• Comments: 4, . it's weird how few textbook definitions of the role are actually represented here. prior to 2021, it was just an overly long european classical music index. "more citations needed" banner since may 2022. i've done some preliminary research and this seems easy to expand: my end goal would be , but is a potential stretch goal. Kinnimeyu (talk) 22:03, 30 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• This is one of those broad articles that are a fun challenge. They can be done, and done well (see night for instance). I imagine this one can be beautifully illustrated with pictures from around the world, instead of implying that musicians are white blokes. In terms of structure, I can imagine that there would be a history section, a classification of different types of musicians, something about education, and possibly something about the roles in society (entertainment, oral history, political and social influence, maybe religion). Maybe something about how musicians make music (like composing, interpreting, directing; but that might overlap with a classification..). And tools of the trade like flutes, harps and modern things. I'm sure that there are cool DYKs when you start writing. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 07:38, 31 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural withdrawal — Since this nominator is currently banned, the judges have procedurally withdrawn this entry. If the nominator is unbanned in the course of this contest's iteration, they are welcome to resume participation. – Aza24 (talk) 03:09, 24 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

This article is under 400 words, which is surprising for an article that's existed since 2002, and short enough that you could easily expand it fivefold to qualify for DYK. I note this because you could potentially set the record for the longest time between an article's creation and a 5× expansion—a record that (to the best of my knowledge) I set last year with Niamey. — Vigilant Cosmic Penguin 🐧 (talk | contribs) 23:07, 30 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

that'd be interesting! though with a topic as broad as "musician" i'd struggle to find an appropriate DYK... um...

Did you know ... ...that a musician is a thing you can be?

i'm sure i'll find a reference book worth citing in a DYK sometime Kinnimeyu (talk) 23:13, 30 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• Nominator: Icepinner
• Improvements: (start state + improvement diff)
• Comments: A level 5-vital article. Not a flashy entry, but there are loads to be improved. The contest does take place during my exams/study break though, so I'll probably be offline for most of the competition.
  On a side note, to anyone who was familiar with my Archimedes' screw crusade.... yeah I kinda gave up on that, mainly because of poor organisational skills (ex: not taking any notes on the sources). But, this time, I'll be a bit more careful with my research. Icepinner (Come to Hakurei Shrine!) 08:25, 14 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• Withdrawn. I knew that my final exams would reduce my editing capacity and time, but I thought I would be able to take part between exams. On top of that, I have an active FLC, so I often find myself barely making a dent in my entry. I never really intended to win, but I might as well withdraw for administrative purposes. I'll probably look at mt entry once my exams are over, which is near the end of the contest. Thank you to everyone for their kind words, and good luck to the rest of the contestants! Icepinner (Come to Hakurei Shrine!) 16:27, 30 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  Sorry to hear that you couldn't find the time to edit the article. Good luck on your finals! ⹃Maltazarian ^{ᚾparley${\displaystyle \lor }$investigateᛅ} 16:46, 30 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• Really nice going with your note taking thus far, just remember that actual written content only counts after the contest start (April 15th)! Considering none of our ancient world wonders are FA (or even GA!) it would be a flashy feat to aim for getting one there, good choice. I would look closely at the section ordering and titles—it's currently hectic; most readers will miss the alternate name "Pharos of Alexandria" and be confused why it says "Pharos" in section headings. You might also consider consolidating the development, destruction and redisovery sections somehow. "Proposed reconstruction" also seems like a natural subsection of "Redisovery". And the "Significance" section is an uncited mess (I might just delete it all). So many options! Best of luck – Aza24 (talk) 18:05, 24 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks for the kind words, Aza24! Looking back, starting on this article a while ago before The Core Contest seems like a questionable choice, but to be honest, I'm just in it for the sake of improving Vital Articles, so I may start working on the article before the start date (if not, then school should keep me occupied until the contest starts). I do agree that the headers will need consolidation... it's a bit of a mess. For the "significance" section, I might keep it, though this is heavily dependent on MOS:POPCULT (I need to research more about the lighthouse's architectural influence, if that exists at all). I think another glaring problem with the article is how the lighthouse came to be part of the Seven Wonders of the Ancient World (partial answer: Octo Mundi Miracula). Icepinner (Come to Hakurei Shrine!) 06:43, 25 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• YES – thank you so much for volunteering to improve this article, it is one of my favourite things ever. JacobTheRox^{(talk | contributions)} 19:31, 4 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• Nominator: I2Overcome
• Improvements: (start state + improvement diff)
• Comments: 5, . Chalcedony is the silica polymorph that comprises the common gemstones Agate ◎ 5 (nominated for level 5), Onyx ◎ 5, Jasper ◎ 5, and Carnelian ◎ 5 (among many others) and is a major component of Flint ◎ 5 and Chert ◎ 5 (nominated for level 5). The article has numerous uncited sections and is greatly lacking in structural properties and geological information. There is some unnecessary detail about agate in the History section, and minor varieties/details are given too much weight in the Varieties section, which needs to be expanded. The lead is also too long for the current length of the article.

Note: I previously made some relatively minor improvements to this article, and it has been on my to-do list to improve to GA status for a while. I₂Overcome ^talk 21:28, 4 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn due to focusing instead on improving agate in early May and now a family emergency. I₂Overcome ^talk 22:50, 27 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• Lovely as well :). Is the pronunciations needed so prominently (MOS:LEADCLUTTER)? Quite a short article, that should be fairly straightforward to expand. The first paragraph of the lead assumes too much background knowledge, as this articles 'broadest likely audience' is a general audience, who will not know words like monoclinic. It might miss a section on etymology and on formation perhaps? The images can shine in the article; don't feel restricted to the small standard image size. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 12:58, 13 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• Nominator: Dracophyllum
• Improvements: (start state + improvement diff)
• Comments: 3, (generous imo) class article with just 48 references and tons of uncited text. The longest mountain range in the world stretching down the length of South America. Excited to rewrite and spend some time looking at mountains... maybe i'll see it in person one day. Progress at User:Dracophyllum/Andes. Cheers, Dracophyllum 01:21, 25 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

sry I know people were hoping I'd get to this but unfortunately I've been studying for an entrance exam and it's become quite all consuming. Maybe next year, cheers, Dracophyllum 01:54, 28 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Fantastic choice. The article has many amazing images already, but I know you have your magic touch with image selection and letting images shine in articles. Many instances of WP:SANDWICH. The sidebar can likely go. The article assumes too much background knowledge in place (what is a fold and thrust belt? plutons? Climate change not mentioned, even though it has a massive effect on glaciers in the Andes. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 16:52, 29 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Oooh a vital 3 geography article, nice! I've always wanted to do a geography article... but too much technical stuff. Anyways, the article has a lot of issues. I mean, Guinness World Records cited for the Andes' range, really? Looking forward to seeing this article being revamped! Icepinner (Come to Hakurei Shrine!) 10:54, 31 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• Nominator: RecycledPixels
• Improvements: (start state + improvement diff)
• Comments:A level 5-vital article at start class. Some sources consider this painting to be among the most iconic paintings of the Civil Rights Era in the United States. There is a lot of very interesting information to be added to the article and I'd like to raise it to GA level during this time frame.

Withdrawing. I've made progress offline in rewriting this article, but real life issues come first for me and while this article will eventually get done, it won't get done within the time frame of this contest. RecycledPixels (talk) 03:06, 28 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

765 views per day, which is very high for an individual painting. Pretty short now, although it does the job fairly well. What is missing is an analysis of why it works so well as an image. I hope this is the "very interesting information to be added" you mean. Johnbod (talk) 02:20, 14 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• Nominator: Maltazarian
• Improvements: (start state + improvement diff)
• Comments: 4, . The reason I've selected this is quite simple: it's one of the few level 4 articles with a close connection to Sweden that is still Start-class, and I happen to be—you guessed it—Swedish. I thought hey, if it's easier for me to do this than it would be for most others (Swedish language sources etc.) then why not be efficient. As for the article itself it is in clear need of attention. There's barely any information at all about the human geography aspects of the Kattegat, and the etymology section is bigger than the history section for crying out loud! There are also some clear improvements to be made on the physical geography side of things. There's much work to be done, and I want to get the the article to at least a . ⹃Maltazarian ^{ᚾparley${\displaystyle \lor }$investigateᛅ} 14:32, 2 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• Withdrawn. Forgot I had to withdrawn from this when I decided to focus on the Destubathon of the Americas. I certainly didn't give up on this article and I will absolutely get back to working on this article when I have time to do so, but if I tried to do this and the destubathon I would be able to give it my all in neither of them. I chose the destubathon because I got really into it and I feel that's not really something I can do later in the same way I can do this later. It's just unfortunate that the decision was made to hold them simultaneously, I would have gone all in on this one otherwise. ⹃Maltazarian ^{ᚾparley${\displaystyle \lor }$investigateᛅ} 05:01, 28 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• Lovely choice. Now, as a Dutch person, I don't mind the focus on etymology too much, as that's where we shine. Joking aside, the article's biology section is also in great need of attention as it's much too difficult and poorly structured. Why is the salinity in the biology section. Should it not be in a section called "Hydrology and water layers" or something like that? A rewrite to ensure it meets our WP:UNDERSTANDABILITY guideline wouldn't go amiss either. The sources in the ecological collapse subsection are old and the writing doesn't feel completely neutral. This is an article where images can really shine, and don't feel like you need to use the small default sizes of the images either if a larger image can convey information better. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 17:23, 2 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• Well straits that can have a major impact on international shipping are certainly topical! That aspect could do with expansion I think, and no doubt much else too. Johnbod (talk) 03:13, 13 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• Nominator: Wracking
• Improvements: (start state + improvement diff)
• Comments: 5, . I see lots of room for improvement in this article, particularly in expanding on the song's background, composition and content, and lasting cultural impact. Open to collaborate. Wracking ^talk! 00:38, 3 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawing, unfortunately I will not be able to implement my improvements in the contest timeframe. Wracking ^talk! 17:31, 28 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I honestly can't believe a song with such low chart presence is a vital article. Oh well, this song is a vibe; good luck! 🍗TheNuggeteer🍗 (My "blotter") 03:05, 3 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

It still averages 210 views a day after 37 years. Johnbod (talk) 03:13, 3 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The surprisingly widespread censorship might explain why it never managed to get high up in the charts. It's an iconic song, definitely, and shows up in notable rankings of top protest songs. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 06:18, 3 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Both its album and the song itself are level-5 vital articles? ເສລີພາບ (talk) 08:26, 3 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• Nominator: PizzaKing13
• Improvements: (start state + improvement diff)
• Comments: 4, . Francisco Morazán was a heavyweight of Central American politics during the existence of the Federal Republic of Central America and served as its president throughout most of the 1830s. He is revered as a national hero in Central America and particularly in El Salvador and Honduras. Article is a C but could use improvements to citations, sourcing, imaging, and writing style.

  Withdrawing, not gonna be able to finish before the end of the comp. PizzaKing13 (¡Hablame!) 🍕👑 18:53, 28 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• Nominator: JacobTheRox
• Improvements:
• Comments: Reading the article is a bit hard atm as it's full of trivia and random unconnected sentences so my hope is GA but generally a nice read by the end of the contest.
• Withdrawn: due to various factors I couldn't donate enough time to the core contest as I sought to originally. I've made the decision to make two great articles (British Rail and Isambard Kingdom Brunel) than three okay ones. I am still interested in improving this article and will another time.

• Nominator: Lazman321
• Improvements: (start state + improvement diff)
• Comments: 3, . Quite possibly the most popular form of modern literature, and yet the article is filled with entire passages that are unsourced, not to mention very little discussion of the form itself beyond its history. I already have a general outline of what this article could look like, along with some potential sources to use. Lazman321 (talk) 17:40, 1 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  Withdraw: Unfortunately, since I have had to deal with college and preparing for finals, I don't think I'll have enough time to improve this article as much as I would like. I wonder if in the future, this competition could be moved to sometime in the summer, where far fewer students will have to worry about school or college. Lazman321 (talk) 02:10, 3 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• There is a well-informed account of the history here, though needing lots of citations. Far too many alternative terms in Asian languages in the text, and what is the huge section on chapbooks doing here at all? The history needs a good deal more on women as writers and readers. Yes, a good theoretical overview is needed, and I think also a section on the supposed decline of the novel in recent years. Johnbod (talk) 18:46, 1 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • On " I wonder if in the future, this competition could be moved to sometime in the summer, where far fewer students will have to worry about school or college" - this has been suggested before, but of course some people, especially students, will be on long trips which would rule them out. Johnbod (talk) 03:24, 3 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• Nominator: Cathodography
• Improvements: (start state + improvement diff)
• Comments: A vital-3 B-class article and former featured article that has since degraded. Portuguese is the fifth most spoken native language in the world (~267 million speakers), yet despite its length, it contains many uncited passages and suffers from poor organization; for example, the Phonology section includes paragraphs about the history of Galician-Portuguese that have nothing to do with phonology. Three images also appear completely misplaced in the middle of the Vowels subsection (the Natural History Museum of Mozambique, the Fundação Oriente building in India, and the International Portuguese Language Institute in Praia), with no connection to vowel phonology whatsoever. The Vocabulary section is largely a long list of loanword examples strung together, with little encyclopedic framing, and would benefit from fairer coverage of other significant contributors to Portuguese vocabulary, particularly Latin (the dominant source, yet isn't discussed enough), Tupi-Guarani (and other Brazilian indigenous languages), and African languages beyond Kimbundu. Cattos^💭 17:38, 25 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  Withdrawing as I didn't have the necessary time to improve all the corners of the article. Cattos^💭 02:58, 6 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]