Wikipedia:The Core Contest

As Wikipedia has evolved and become more detailed and polished, its criteria for featured and good-article status have become more rigorous. This is a good thing as we are now producing an ever-expanding portfolio of material that actually looks like it could appear in a published tome. However, one side effect is the rigour of the process favours the production of more esoteric/narrow/specialised good and featured content. What to do? Carrots are always preferred to sticks, and so this competition fills a niche...

The aim of the contest is to encourage a short, sharp burst of activity and article improvement in the vital articles. Editors are also welcome to improve any broad or important article which lies outside this list as long as they explain why their article should be considered. The list provided is a guide only. Furthermore, a priority is to improve those core articles in the worst state of disrepair, expanded upon below:

• The article improvement process takes place over one and a half months, during which time an editor or editors knuckle down and improve an article, and submit a diff of their work at Wikipedia:The Core Contest/Entries.
• The broader or more "core" an article is, the greater weight it will be given in scoring. The general pool should come from Wikipedia:Vital articles. Anyone willing to tackle one of the top-tier vital articles will gain much kudos for it. Other broad articles can be nominated (see other lists of {{core topics}} for inspiration), as some important and broad articles are missing from the list above. Any editor is welcome to nominate any article and if they can put a good case as to why it should be considered; we'll certainly listen.
• During this period, prizes will be awarded to the best article improvement of a large/broad/important article. Improvement will be quantified and compared – in cases of similar levels of improvement, articles in a worse state to begin with will be deemed more valuable, all other parameters being equal. Thus an article that has gone from (say) 10–50% sourced with reliable sources, will be valued more highly than one from (say) 50–90% sourced.
• As judges review entries, they will post feedback on the improvements and areas still to improve before future good article nominationorfeatured article candidacy.
• Current featured articles are not eligible. Good articles are, but you might have a tough time showing radical improvement in a GA, which would most likely be dwarfed by massive improvement in a start-class article. The good- and featured-article process are not considered part of the Core Contest.
• The judges will weigh up the improvement of the article, combined with its "core-ness", to come up with a "best additive encyclopedic value" to Wikipedia.

Panel of judges – Casliber (talk · contribs), Femke (talk · contribs) and Aza24 (talk · contribs)

The Core Contest proper has run on twelve occasions (see winners from previous contests):

• November 25, 2007 – December 9, 2007
• March 10–31, 2012, which saw £250 in Amazon vouchers shared by six editors
• August 2012, which saw £250 in Amazon vouchers shared by seven editors
• April 2013, which saw £250 in Amazon vouchers shared by three editors
• 10 February – 9 March 2014, which saw £250 in Amazon vouchers shared by five editors
• 1 March – 14 April 2015, which saw £250 in Amazon vouchers shared by three editors
• 15 May – 30 June 2016, which saw £250 in Amazon vouchers shared by five editors
• May–June 2017, which saw £250 in Amazon vouchers shared by three editors
• June–July 2021, which saw £250 in cash shared by five editors
• April–May 2022, which saw £250 in Amazon vouchers shared by four editors
• April–May 2023, which saw £250 in cash shared by five editors
• April–May 2024, which saw £250 in cash shared by four editors

Danny's contest (3rd incarnation), held from September until October 7, 2006, was a precursor to the Core Contest. A total of $170 of Amazon vouchers were awarded to three editors. The first and second incarnations focussed on new articles while the third looked at building core content.