630:
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  —
1906:
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
845:. 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
1265:
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.
1111:. 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,
668:
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.  —
1107:
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
785:
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
563:. 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.
1364:
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
1264:
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
784:
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
667:
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
1905:
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
629:
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
45:
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
1106:
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
1664:), 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). —
1616:
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
803:
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
1612:: 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—
1474:
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.
1452:
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
Knowledge (XXG) articles, with appropriate attribution), added some images, and updated the table. In the process some non-ideal sources such as
551:
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
334:
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
182:
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
1471:, 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.
1910:.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,
335:
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.
1177:
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.
761:
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.
954:
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
1580:: 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
1927:: 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.
1162:
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!
1290:
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
756:
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
935:
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.
1590:
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). —
452:"??! Yikes! Judging by the large number of other languages with "Duck" entries, improving this one in the English Knowledge (XXG) might result in a cascade ripple elsewhere. It gets an average of ~1600 views/day (last 90 days).
893:
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.
1586:—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
1028:
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
1072:
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.
1036:
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.
217:
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.
1159:
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.
232:
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.
1740:: 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
444:
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
1556:
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
915:. 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. —
435:
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. :/
1069:
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.
1797:" - 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.
1102:
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:
908:
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
1010:
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.
455:
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.
581:
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
1823:
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
1642:, 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.
46:
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.
1933:: Relatively low on coreness (VIT5, 233 page views), but certainly eligible. Ideal amount of horribleness to start with; even a single sentence lede!
974:
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.  —
27:
1329:
1307:
1285:
304:
1765:: 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.
1320:, this article deserves its C-class in my opinion and massive improvement is possible. Relatively high views, but at VIT5 not the most core.
834:
531:
889:
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
21:
1528:
1228:
1560:
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.
1886:
1053:
746:
Improvements: Well, this was a lot more "elbow grease" (as Johnbod would put it) than I might have anticipated. Here's a before diff:
351:
Good choice! Looking forward to reading what we think we know. The article has the perfect amount of crappiness for the core contest.
93:
139:
318:. Huge expansion from 722 words prosesize to 11350, 7 unique refs to 224, and Start to GA. Authorship percentage from 0% to 97.7%.
387:
Yes, great choice. Article is in such rudimentary shape that if you're able to really overhaul it, it will be a huge improvement.
1731:
1355:
1261:
1257:
1246:
842:
838:
315:
311:
176:
1845:
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
1442:
68:
1395:
1298:
Another duff class grading - it's been "C" since January 2012, when it was half its current size. High views - c 450 was it?
1215:
711:
592:
502:
398:
259:
125:
1137:
https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Flower&type=revision&diff=1033632316&oldid=1025525434&diffmode=source
1066:
Added cited information, removed some uncited claims. Added lots of information about early life and time in New York City.
959:
does not have a dedicated article. The only page they have is a "learn about this topic" page with a single link to their
623:
17:
429:
1942:
1919:
1854:
1840:
1806:
1774:
1757:
1699:
1677:
1651:
1630:
1604:
1498:
1484:
1462:
1413:
1399:
1379:
1219:
1187:
1172:
1152:
1128:
1082:
1046:
1019:
983:
945:
928:
903:
884:
862:
813:
798:
771:
715:
691:
677:
660:
639:
596:
572:
546:
506:
482:
464:
402:
378:
360:
346:
329:
279:
263:
241:
227:
212:
151:
129:
105:
87:
1587:
740:
956:
341:
324:
298:
525:
1673:
1626:
1600:
1522:
909:
700:
section instead of a list would be a vast improvement. Capital cities are core articles and so a great choice.
1915:
1880:
1260:
was the last revision prior to the TCC, which had 18,759 characters (3,112 words) of readable prose size.
1146:
1122:
990:
1748:. The main section is in the form of a table and this means it is not included in the page size figures.
1938:
1850:
1480:
1325:
1168:
941:
656:
552:
improvements could make a big difference, even if all I do is make it more worthy of its C-class status.
460:
356:
336:
319:
294:
1836:
1770:
1753:
1725:
1409:
1349:
1270:
1240:
521:
286:
223:
196:
170:
1667:
1620:
1594:
1518:
1458:
1436:
101:
62:
50:
1617:
capitalism. I really don't think the article has many redeeming qualities in its current state. —
1911:
1876:
1786:. Cas liber will know what is missing better than I. Starts with the rather ridiculous hatnote "
1389:
1209:
752:). One of the biggest (and most time consuming) things I did was the entire "Origins", requiring
705:
586:
496:
392:
253:
119:
114:
8 kb of readable prosesize, 9 measly refs. Plenty of room for expansion! Important broad topic.
1384:
A Bridge too Far? Still, an important landmark, and if it polishes up really well who knows...
1802:
1695:
1647:
1494:
1375:
1303:
1281:
1183:
1141:
1117:
1097:
1078:
1042:
1015:
979:
899:
871:
this year even without any new content for (now) two full years. Hoping to take this to GA. —
809:
687:
673:
635:
617:
568:
542:
478:
374:
275:
237:
208:
147:
83:
1934:
1846:
1476:
1337:
1321:
1316:
Judge comment(s): with at least an entire section unsourced, and other parts iffily sourced
1164:
937:
921:
877:
855:
781:
722:
652:
456:
423:
352:
1832:
1766:
1749:
1721:
1405:
1345:
1266:
1236:
794:
777:
767:
758:
734:
219:
192:
166:
849:
with repopularising the anthology format for the 2010s is maybe relevant to coreness). —
1454:
1432:
960:
786:
365:
Judges comment. Good but tough choice. Geographical balance will be tricky, I suspect.
97:
58:
1424:
1385:
1205:
701:
582:
492:
388:
249:
115:
1798:
1691:
1643:
1490:
1371:
1370:
Already 74 raw kb, with 200-ish citations, so dramatic improvement might be tough.
1299:
1277:
1179:
1074:
1038:
1011:
975:
895:
846:
820:
805:
683:
669:
631:
613:
564:
538:
474:
473:
is the great period for ducks (and other waterbirds, but especially ducks) in art.
370:
271:
233:
204:
143:
79:
248:
Agreed - only 21 refs, and article less than 10kb of readable prose. Good choice!
28:
Knowledge (XXG):The Core Contest/Entries/AprilMay2023 archive/Junejuly2021 archive
1820:
1710:
1567:
criticism, with some supplementary material from critics of lesser significance.
1467:
Comments: With thanks to the judges for the comments on my previous nomination,
964:
916:
872:
850:
828:
419:
1816:
1789:
1783:
1639:
1108:
1033:
868:
790:
763:
730:
556:
470:
366:
1404:
Sorry, I bit off more than I can chew on this one. Perhaps next time though.
37:
Below are the submissions for the June/July 2021 running of the Core Contest
1828:
513:
488:
696:
Lots to improve - even just some sort over geographical overview in the
1582:
1547:
1506:
1201:
158:
1204:), Importance of floral anatomy in classical (Linnean) taxonomy etc.
1089:
605:
448:
included are pretty appalling: Self-published books? Mythbusters? "
1824:
1468:
1113:
https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Flower&oldid=1033632316
1104:
https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Flower&oldid=1025525434
1907:
1865:
780:, both because its the topic I "specialize in" and the topic of
411:
1563:
Sources were changed to only reflect the most major writers of
96:
or some integration and re-balancing between the two articles.
966:
I can easily imagine other print encyclopedias not containing
682:
Judge comment: As discussed on talk, good choice. Lots to do.
560:
487:
Might be tricky deciding what info to have here and what on
140:
Wikipedia_talk:The_Core_Contest#Which_articles_are_eligible?
1489:
Judge comment(s): Yes, good choice - hovers around 1k vpd.
1902:
1899:
1896:
1745:
1741:
1661:
1557:
1543:
1539:
1449:
1274:
1253:
1136:
1112:
1103:
1064:
1001:
750:
747:
648:
644:
439:
436:
270:
Judge comment: Great choice! As you say, loads to do.
200:
188:
184:
75:
1660:
C class when I started editing it (you can see that
469:
Judge comment: Good choice - article is as you say.
1200:section (including discussion of differences with
833:Improvements: C-class to GA; changes explained at
92:Comments: I envision doing a partial upmerge from
1453:Investopedia were swapped out for better ones.
537:Improvements: Just one edit moving a section.
369:. Best to take a largely thematic approach?
1318:(if the word iffily doesn't exist, it should)
8:
559:, though one wonders how many actually want
201:Diff like we ask for - some edits by others
867:Comments: Only level 5 vital, but it's on
776:Comments: Was originally leaning to doing
1795:In botany, type of dry indehiscent fruit
950:Comments by others: I do enjoy watching
555:Judge comment: Interesting choice. Hmm,
1227:
835:User talk:Bilorv/Black Mirror sandbox
7:
1229:St. Patrick's Cathedral (Manhattan)
1054:George Brown (Canadian politician)
1032:Judge comment(s): Hmmm - averaged
94:History of the British West Indies
35:
18:Knowledge (XXG):The Core Contest
1815:I think I will propose merging
1544:Sandbox version prior to June 1
1365:send this to GAN when I'm done.
698:Residential areas and townships
804:necessary, just elbow grease.
789:, so... this should be fun...
491:. Good broad article though.
138:Judge comment: I commented at
1:
199:) 08:49, 16 July 2021 (UTC)
1273:) 00:50, 9 July 2021 (UTC)
1262:Special:Permalink/1032667708
1258:Special:Permalink/1024164567
843:Special:Permalink/1032420872
839:Special:Permalink/1025950356
749:(edit here's a proper diff:
1254:Improved from C-class to GA
1196:So much missing - needs an
1115:, is my end oldid. Thanks,
1003:Brought article to FA class
970:too, whereas a series like
1959:
1787:
1690:Yes, it needs to be that.
1570:Promoted to GA on July 12.
1943:08:10, 12 June 2021 (UTC)
1920:18:29, 15 July 2021 (UTC)
1855:11:57, 12 June 2021 (UTC)
1841:06:16, 11 June 2021 (UTC)
1807:14:46, 10 June 2021 (UTC)
1782:: Remarkably short. Gets
1775:13:08, 10 June 2021 (UTC)
1758:09:04, 16 July 2021 (UTC)
1700:00:05, 10 June 2021 (UTC)
1548:the article as of 14 July
1463:18:52, 15 July 2021 (UTC)
1286:21:42, 24 July 2021 (UTC)
1153:21:42, 15 July 2021 (UTC)
1020:13:56, 15 July 2021 (UTC)
772:00:34, 16 July 2021 (UTC)
661:09:21, 27 July 2021 (UTC)
640:23:03, 15 July 2021 (UTC)
547:01:30, 16 July 2021 (UTC)
450:How to draw cartoon birds
330:14:41, 14 July 2021 (UTC)
213:21:16, 24 July 2021 (UTC)
88:21:14, 24 July 2021 (UTC)
76:some, but not a contender
1788:Not to be confused with
1678:23:21, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
1652:23:00, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
1631:22:09, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
1605:21:44, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
1499:21:00, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
1485:19:30, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
1414:00:54, 9 July 2021 (UTC)
1400:01:31, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
1380:04:03, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
1330:17:55, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
1308:03:58, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
1220:01:33, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
1188:22:07, 31 May 2021 (UTC)
1173:17:32, 31 May 2021 (UTC)
1129:21:52, 8 July 2021 (UTC)
1083:22:00, 31 May 2021 (UTC)
1047:21:58, 31 May 2021 (UTC)
984:15:17, 27 May 2021 (UTC)
946:19:29, 27 May 2021 (UTC)
929:12:34, 27 May 2021 (UTC)
904:01:59, 27 May 2021 (UTC)
885:17:57, 26 May 2021 (UTC)
863:10:41, 7 July 2021 (UTC)
814:03:05, 26 May 2021 (UTC)
799:18:29, 25 May 2021 (UTC)
716:15:41, 29 May 2021 (UTC)
692:14:05, 24 May 2021 (UTC)
678:20:43, 23 May 2021 (UTC)
597:15:39, 29 May 2021 (UTC)
573:19:38, 23 May 2021 (UTC)
507:15:37, 29 May 2021 (UTC)
483:15:05, 23 May 2021 (UTC)
465:07:33, 23 May 2021 (UTC)
403:15:29, 29 May 2021 (UTC)
379:14:56, 23 May 2021 (UTC)
361:08:19, 22 May 2021 (UTC)
347:04:40, 22 May 2021 (UTC)
280:15:07, 23 May 2021 (UTC)
264:13:05, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
242:10:48, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
228:09:30, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
152:15:09, 23 May 2021 (UTC)
130:13:10, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
106:16:37, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
1540:Article prior to June 1
957:Encyclopædia Britannica
41:List of contest entries
991:William Lyon Mackenzie
1135:Here is a dif link:
287:Prehistoric religion
1895:: Diff of changes:
869:6,000 views per day
557:c. 1300 views a day
310:Improvements: From
51:British West Indies
1319:
1275:Diff over contest
26:(Redirected from
1950:
1338:Manhattan Bridge
1317:
1149:
1144:
1125:
1120:
1060:Nominator: Z1720
997:Nominator: Z1720
924:
880:
858:
782:History of music
723:History of music
295:Vaticidalprophet
31:
1958:
1957:
1953:
1952:
1951:
1949:
1948:
1947:
1908:de.wiki version
1869:
1796:
1793:
1714:
1558:Sandbox version
1511:
1428:
1341:
1232:
1147:
1142:
1123:
1118:
1093:
1057:
994:
922:
913:as a good topic
878:
856:
847:widely credited
824:
778:classical music
759:Classical music
726:
609:
522:Thrownfootfalls
517:
415:
290:
162:
54:
43:
33:
32:
25:
24:
12:
11:
5:
1956:
1954:
1946:
1945:
1931:Judge comments
1928:
1922:
1904:
1890:
1868:
1863:
1862:
1861:
1860:
1859:
1858:
1857:
1810:
1809:
1794:
1780:Judge comments
1777:
1760:
1735:
1713:
1708:
1707:
1706:
1705:
1704:
1703:
1702:
1683:
1682:
1681:
1680:
1668:ImaginesTigers
1656:It definitely
1640:Wow! 3,300 vpd
1636:Judge comments
1633:
1621:ImaginesTigers
1607:
1595:ImaginesTigers
1574:
1573:
1572:
1571:
1568:
1561:
1533:
1532:
1519:ImaginesTigers
1510:
1503:
1502:
1501:
1487:
1472:
1465:
1448:Improvements:
1446:
1427:
1422:
1421:
1420:
1419:
1418:
1417:
1416:
1367:
1366:
1362:
1359:
1340:
1334:
1333:
1332:
1313:
1312:
1311:
1310:
1293:
1292:
1288:
1252:Improvements:
1250:
1231:
1226:
1225:
1224:
1223:
1222:
1191:
1190:
1175:
1160:
1156:
1155:
1132:
1131:
1100:
1092:
1087:
1086:
1085:
1070:
1067:
1063:Improvements:
1061:
1056:
1051:
1050:
1049:
1030:
1025:
1024:
1023:
1022:
1005:
1004:
1000:Improvements:
998:
993:
988:
987:
986:
961:Daniel Kaluuya
948:
933:
932:
931:
887:
865:
831:
823:
818:
817:
816:
801:
787:history of art
774:
744:
725:
720:
719:
718:
694:
680:
665:
664:
663:
627:
608:
603:
602:
601:
600:
599:
576:
575:
553:
549:
535:
516:
511:
510:
509:
485:
467:
453:
442:
433:
414:
409:
408:
407:
406:
405:
382:
381:
367:Avge 217 views
363:
349:
332:
308:
289:
284:
283:
282:
267:
266:
245:
244:
230:
215:
180:
161:
156:
155:
154:
135:
134:
133:
132:
109:
108:
90:
74:Improvements:
72:
53:
48:
42:
39:
34:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
1955:
1944:
1940:
1936:
1932:
1929:
1926:
1923:
1921:
1917:
1913:
1909:
1903:
1900:
1897:
1894:
1891:
1888:
1885:
1882:
1878:
1877:Chipmunkdavis
1874:
1871:
1870:
1867:
1864:
1856:
1852:
1848:
1844:
1843:
1842:
1838:
1834:
1830:
1826:
1822:
1818:
1814:
1813:
1812:
1811:
1808:
1804:
1800:
1791:
1785:
1781:
1778:
1776:
1772:
1768:
1764:
1761:
1759:
1755:
1751:
1747:
1743:
1739:
1736:
1733:
1730:
1727:
1723:
1719:
1716:
1715:
1712:
1709:
1701:
1697:
1693:
1689:
1688:
1687:
1686:
1685:
1684:
1679:
1675:
1671:
1670:
1669:
1663:
1659:
1655:
1654:
1653:
1649:
1645:
1641:
1637:
1634:
1632:
1628:
1624:
1623:
1622:
1615:
1611:
1610:More comments
1608:
1606:
1602:
1598:
1597:
1596:
1589:
1588:in my Sandbox
1585:
1584:
1579:
1576:
1575:
1569:
1566:
1562:
1559:
1555:
1554:
1553:
1552:
1551:
1549:
1545:
1541:
1537:
1530:
1527:
1524:
1520:
1516:
1513:
1512:
1509:
1508:
1504:
1500:
1496:
1492:
1488:
1486:
1482:
1478:
1473:
1470:
1466:
1464:
1460:
1456:
1451:
1447:
1444:
1441:
1438:
1434:
1430:
1429:
1426:
1425:Manufacturing
1423:
1415:
1411:
1407:
1403:
1402:
1401:
1397:
1394:
1391:
1387:
1383:
1382:
1381:
1377:
1373:
1369:
1368:
1363:
1361:Improvements:
1360:
1357:
1354:
1351:
1347:
1343:
1342:
1339:
1335:
1331:
1327:
1323:
1315:
1314:
1309:
1305:
1301:
1297:
1296:
1295:
1294:
1289:
1287:
1283:
1279:
1276:
1272:
1268:
1263:
1259:
1255:
1251:
1248:
1245:
1242:
1238:
1234:
1233:
1230:
1221:
1217:
1214:
1211:
1207:
1203:
1199:
1195:
1194:
1193:
1192:
1189:
1185:
1181:
1176:
1174:
1170:
1166:
1161:
1158:
1157:
1154:
1151:
1150:
1145:
1138:
1134:
1133:
1130:
1127:
1126:
1121:
1114:
1110:
1105:
1101:
1099:
1095:
1094:
1091:
1088:
1084:
1080:
1076:
1071:
1068:
1065:
1062:
1059:
1058:
1055:
1052:
1048:
1044:
1040:
1035:
1031:
1027:
1026:
1021:
1017:
1013:
1009:
1008:
1007:
1006:
1002:
999:
996:
995:
992:
989:
985:
981:
977:
973:
969:
965:
962:
958:
953:
949:
947:
943:
939:
934:
930:
926:
925:
918:
914:
912:
907:
906:
905:
901:
897:
892:
888:
886:
882:
881:
874:
870:
866:
864:
860:
859:
852:
848:
844:
840:
836:
832:
830:
826:
825:
822:
819:
815:
811:
807:
802:
800:
796:
792:
788:
783:
779:
775:
773:
769:
765:
760:
755:
751:
748:
745:
742:
739:
736:
732:
728:
727:
724:
721:
717:
713:
710:
707:
703:
699:
695:
693:
689:
685:
681:
679:
675:
671:
666:
662:
658:
654:
650:
646:
643:
642:
641:
637:
633:
628:
625:
622:
619:
615:
611:
610:
607:
604:
598:
594:
591:
588:
584:
580:
579:
578:
577:
574:
570:
566:
562:
558:
554:
550:
548:
544:
540:
536:
533:
530:
527:
523:
519:
518:
515:
512:
508:
504:
501:
498:
494:
490:
486:
484:
480:
476:
472:
468:
466:
462:
458:
454:
451:
447:
443:
441:
438:
434:
431:
428:
425:
421:
417:
416:
413:
410:
404:
400:
397:
394:
390:
386:
385:
384:
383:
380:
376:
372:
368:
364:
362:
358:
354:
350:
348:
345:
344:
340:
339:
333:
331:
328:
327:
323:
322:
317:
313:
309:
306:
303:
300:
296:
292:
291:
288:
285:
281:
277:
273:
269:
268:
265:
261:
258:
255:
251:
247:
246:
243:
239:
235:
231:
229:
225:
221:
216:
214:
210:
206:
202:
198:
194:
190:
186:
181:
178:
175:
172:
168:
164:
163:
160:
157:
153:
149:
145:
142:(at bottom).
141:
137:
136:
131:
127:
124:
121:
117:
113:
112:
111:
110:
107:
103:
99:
95:
91:
89:
85:
81:
77:
73:
70:
67:
64:
60:
56:
55:
52:
49:
47:
40:
38:
29:
23:
19:
1930:
1924:
1893:Improvements
1892:
1883:
1872:
1779:
1762:
1738:Improvements
1737:
1728:
1717:
1666:
1665:
1657:
1635:
1619:
1618:
1613:
1609:
1593:
1592:
1581:
1577:
1564:
1536:Improvements
1535:
1534:
1525:
1514:
1505:
1450:Overall diff
1439:
1431:Nominator -
1392:
1352:
1344:Nominator -
1336:(withdrawn)
1243:
1235:Nominator -
1212:
1197:
1140:
1116:
1098:Dracophyllum
1034:165 views pd
971:
968:Black Mirror
967:
952:Black Mirror
951:
920:
911:Black Mirror
910:
890:
876:
854:
827:Nominator -
821:Black Mirror
753:
737:
729:Nominator -
708:
697:
620:
612:Nominator -
589:
528:
520:Nominator -
499:
449:
445:
426:
418:Nominator -
395:
342:
337:
325:
320:
301:
293:Nominator -
256:
187:(9822 B) to
173:
165:Nominator -
122:
65:
57:Nominator -
44:
36:
1935:FemkeMilene
1847:FemkeMilene
1821:Nut (fruit)
1784:750-odd vpd
1711:Nut (fruit)
1477:FemkeMilene
1322:FemkeMilene
1165:FemkeMilene
1096:Nominator:
938:FemkeMilene
891:improvement
653:FemkeMilene
457:FemkeMilene
353:FemkeMilene
1833:Cwmhiraeth
1817:Nut (food)
1790:Nut (food)
1767:Cwmhiraeth
1750:Cwmhiraeth
1722:Cwmhiraeth
1406:Epicgenius
1346:Epicgenius
1267:Epicgenius
1237:Epicgenius
1109:hydrophily
471:Celtic art
220:Cwmhiraeth
193:Cwmhiraeth
167:Cwmhiraeth
1873:Nominator
1829:Vegetable
1718:Nominator
1515:Nominator
1455:DanCherek
1433:DanCherek
1386:Cas Liber
1291:GA-class.
1206:Cas Liber
1198:etymology
972:Star Trek
702:Cas Liber
583:Cas Liber
493:Cas Liber
389:Cas Liber
338:Vaticidal
321:Vaticidal
316:14th July
250:Cas Liber
116:Cas Liber
98:Guettarda
59:Guettarda
1925:Comments
1887:contribs
1763:Comments
1732:contribs
1578:Comments
1529:contribs
1443:contribs
1396:contribs
1356:contribs
1247:contribs
1216:contribs
963:article.
741:contribs
712:contribs
624:contribs
593:contribs
532:contribs
514:The arts
503:contribs
489:Anatidae
430:contribs
399:contribs
312:25th May
305:contribs
260:contribs
191:(19kb).
177:contribs
126:contribs
69:contribs
20: |
1898:Before:
1799:Johnbod
1692:Johnbod
1644:Johnbod
1614:Dracula
1583:Dracula
1565:Dracula
1507:Dracula
1491:Johnbod
1372:Johnbod
1300:Johnbod
1278:Johnbod
1202:blossom
1180:Johnbod
1148:phyllum
1124:phyllum
1075:Johnbod
1039:Johnbod
1012:Johnbod
976:Amakuru
896:Johnbod
837:. From
806:Johnbod
684:Johnbod
670:Amakuru
632:Amakuru
614:Amakuru
565:Johnbod
539:Johnbod
475:Johnbod
440:Changes
371:Johnbod
343:prophet
326:prophet
272:Johnbod
234:Johnbod
205:Johnbod
189:to this
159:Zoology
144:Johnbod
80:Johnbod
22:Entries
1901:After:
1546:; and
1090:Flower
917:Bilorv
873:Bilorv
851:Bilorv
829:Bilorv
645:Before
606:Lusaka
420:MeegsC
1825:Fruit
1819:into
1469:Color
1143:Draco
1119:Draco
1029:line.
791:Aza24
764:Aza24
731:Aza24
437:Start
16:<
1939:talk
1916:talk
1881:talk
1866:Dili
1851:talk
1837:talk
1827:and
1803:talk
1771:talk
1754:talk
1746:this
1742:this
1726:talk
1696:talk
1674:talk
1662:here
1648:talk
1627:talk
1601:talk
1523:talk
1495:talk
1481:talk
1459:talk
1437:talk
1410:talk
1390:talk
1376:talk
1350:talk
1326:talk
1304:talk
1282:talk
1271:talk
1241:talk
1210:talk
1184:talk
1169:talk
1079:talk
1043:talk
1016:talk
980:talk
942:talk
923:talk
900:talk
879:talk
857:talk
810:talk
795:talk
768:talk
735:talk
706:talk
688:talk
674:talk
657:talk
649:diff
636:talk
618:talk
587:talk
569:talk
543:talk
526:talk
497:talk
479:talk
461:talk
424:talk
412:Duck
393:talk
375:talk
357:talk
299:talk
276:talk
254:talk
238:talk
224:talk
209:talk
197:talk
185:this
171:talk
148:talk
120:talk
102:talk
84:talk
63:talk
1912:CMD
1744:to
1658:was
841:to
754:way
561:Art
446:are
314:to
1941:)
1918:)
1875::
1853:)
1839:)
1831:.
1805:)
1773:)
1756:)
1720::
1698:)
1676:)
1650:)
1638::
1629:)
1603:)
1550:.
1542:;
1538::
1517::
1497:)
1483:)
1461:)
1412:)
1398:)
1378:)
1328:)
1306:)
1284:)
1256:.
1218:)
1186:)
1171:)
1139:.
1081:)
1045:)
1018:)
982:)
944:)
927:)
902:)
883:)
861:)
812:)
797:)
770:)
714:)
690:)
676:)
659:)
651:,
647:,
638:)
595:)
571:)
545:)
505:)
481:)
463:)
401:)
377:)
359:)
278:)
262:)
240:)
226:)
211:)
203:.
150:)
128:)
104:)
86:)
78:.
1937:(
1914:(
1889:)
1884:·
1879:(
1849:(
1835:(
1801:(
1792:.
1769:(
1752:(
1734:)
1729:·
1724:(
1694:(
1672:(
1646:(
1625:(
1599:(
1531:)
1526:·
1521:(
1493:(
1479:(
1457:(
1445:)
1440:·
1435:(
1408:(
1393:·
1388:(
1374:(
1358:)
1353:·
1348:(
1324:(
1302:(
1280:(
1269:(
1249:)
1244:·
1239:(
1213:·
1208:(
1182:(
1167:(
1077:(
1041:(
1014:(
978:(
940:(
919:(
898:(
875:(
853:(
808:(
793:(
766:(
743:)
738:·
733:(
709:·
704:(
686:(
672:(
655:(
634:(
626:)
621:·
616:(
590:·
585:(
567:(
541:(
534:)
529:·
524:(
500:·
495:(
477:(
459:(
432:)
427:·
422:(
396:·
391:(
373:(
355:(
307:)
302:·
297:(
274:(
257:·
252:(
236:(
222:(
207:(
195:(
179:)
174:·
169:(
146:(
123:·
118:(
100:(
82:(
71:)
66:·
61:(
30:)
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.