Archives

Index Archive 1 Archive 2

This page has archives. Topics inactive for 30 days are automatically archived by ClueBot III if there are more than 3.

swimming good articles

Thank you for quality articles such as Open water swimming at the 2025 World Aquatics Championships – Men's 3 km knockout sprint, for good topic Swimming at the 2024 Summer Olympics – Qualification (39 articles!), for not only performing quality reviewing on a large scale but also teaching it to others, - Luke, you are an awesome Wikipedian!

You are recipient no. 3010 of Precious, a prize of QAI. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:05, 18 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much @Gerda Arendt! It's so appreciated. See you round :) IAWW (talk) 12:35, 19 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:23, 30 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hello It is a wonderful world and thanks for your GA review of the article Epistemology a while back. I was wondering whether you may be interested in reviewing the article Rule of inference at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Rule of inference/archive1. I've nominated it for FA status, but it hasn't received enough reviews so far. Thank you for taking a look and please feel under no obligation if now is not a good time. Phlsph7 (talk) 17:48, 30 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Your good article nomination of the article Open water swimming at the 2025 World Aquatics Championships – Mixed 4 × 1500 metre relay is under review. See the review page for more information. This may take up to 7 days; feel free to contact the reviewer with any questions you might have. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of DaniloDaysOfOurLives -- DaniloDaysOfOurLives (talk) 07:02, 1 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Good article nominations | February 2026 Backlog Drive
February 2026 Backlog Drive: On 1 February, a one-month backlog drive for good article nominations will begin. Barnstars will be awarded based on the number and age of articles reviewed. Interested in taking part? You can sign up here.
Other ways to participate: Join the conversations on our talk page.
You're receiving this message because you have conducted a good article review in the past year or participated in the previous backlog drive.

-- MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:00, 1 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:19, 20 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! Recently Crystalite13 opened his GA review for my GA nomination, but as you see, none of the comments are being updated for over 5 days. I think Crystalite13 kinda seems to be discouraged, since he was criticized at reviewing GA nominations with lack of depth. I've seen a discussion in his talk page that you opened, and I found that you suggested him to co-review GA nominations if he wants.

So if you don't mind, I want to ask if you could co-review my nomination with Crystalite13, as I also want my nomination to be reviewed carefully. At first, I was thinking to open this discussion in his talk page, but I decided to open this in your talk page. And I'm not even sure if he wants to co-review my nomination, but as the nominator's opinion, it would be much better to co-review my nomination (along with others) as Crystalite13 is a newish editor and unfamilar w reviewing articles yet, while you're an experienced editor. But please know that you don't have to co-review all of nominations with him, and I'm not forcing this either. Thank you for your works! Best, Camilasdandelions (✉️) 06:05, 27 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't mind... Crystalite13 (talk) 06:10, 27 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The first round of the 2026 WikiCup ended on 26 February. As some of you may have noticed, good article nomination reviews now receive 10 points, an increase from 5 points in the previous year, as per a consensus at WT:CUP. This point increase has been retroactively applied to all good article reviews for which competitors have claimed points in this round. Peer reviews, which continue to be worth 5 points, are now listed in the same section as featured article candidate reviews, rather than with good article reviews. Everyone who competed in round 1 will advance to round 2 unless they have withdrawn or been banned. No other changes to the round-point system have been made for this year.

Round 1 was competitive. Three contestants scored more than 1,000 round points, and the top 16 contestants all scored more than 300 round points. The following competitors scored more than 800 round points:

• Bgsu98 (submissions) with 1,467 round points, largely gained from 1 featured article, 5 featured lists, 15 good articles, and 42 FAC and GAN reviews;
• Olliefant (submissions) with 1,246 round points, largely from 4 featured lists, 9 good articles, 2 featured topic articles, 4 did you know articles, and 75 FAC and GAN reviews;
• Generalissima (submissions) with 1,095 round points, largely from 3 featured articles, 6 good articles, and 5 did you know articles;
• MCE89 (submissions) with 848 round points, largely from 1 featured article, 8 good articles, 1 did you know article, and 32 FAC and GAN reviews; and
• Rollinginhisgrave (submissions) with 838 round points, largely from 1 featured article, 8 good articles, 1 did you know article, and 14 FAC, GAN, and peer reviews.

The full scores for round 1 can be seen here. During this round, contestants have claimed 7 featured articles, 16 featured lists, 2 featured-topic articles, 168 good articles, 13 good-topic articles and more than 50 Did You Know articles. In addition, competitors have worked on 14 In the News articles, and they have conducted nearly 700 reviews. The tournament points table will be updated within the next few days.

Remember that any content promoted after 26 February but before the start of Round 2 can be claimed in Round 2. Invitations for collaborative writing efforts or any other discussion of potentially interesting work is always welcome on the WikiCup talk page. Remember, if two or more WikiCup competitors have done significant work on an article, all can claim points. If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article candidates, a featured process, or anywhere else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews Needed. If you want to help out with the WikiCup, feel free to review one of the nominations listed on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews Needed. Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove your name from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:57, 27 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Your good article nomination of the article Open water swimming at the 2025 World Aquatics Championships – Mixed 4 × 1500 metre relay has been placed on hold, as the article needs some changes. See the review page for more information. If these are addressed within 7 days, the nomination will pass; otherwise, it may fail. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of DaniloDaysOfOurLives -- DaniloDaysOfOurLives (talk) 19:03, 28 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Your good article nomination of the article Open water swimming at the 2013 World Aquatics Championships – Team has been placed on hold, as the article needs some changes. See the review page for more information. If these are addressed within 7 days, the nomination will pass; otherwise, it may fail. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of DaniloDaysOfOurLives -- DaniloDaysOfOurLives (talk) 00:04, 1 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]