Wikipedia:The Core Contest/Entries
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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.
- See archives of past competition for inspiration: 2007, 2012a, 2012b, 2013, 2014, 2015 , 2017, 2021, 2022, 2023, 2024, 2025.
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 of contest entries
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.
A very core example
- Nominator:
- Improvements: (start state + improvement diff)
- Comments:
Comments by judges
Comments by others
Lighthouse of Alexandria
- 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)
Comments by judges
- 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)
Comments by others
Olympic Peninsula
- Nominator: feedmepaperr
- Improvements: (start state + improvement diff)
- Comments: Level 5 vital start class article, has had a More citations needed template since 2019. feedmepaperr (talk) 13:24, 14 March 2026 (UTC)
Comments by judges
- Definitely needs some attention, particularly citations as you mention. Dig into the history more; the Dodwell/Rixon mapping sounds interesting. In fact, there's very little about the human history / settlements there (just a brief mention of the towns). No population even?! Do not been hesitant in cutting images: You don't need a picture of every major feature, there's probably just too many—just focus on whichever get the most in-text mentions. Best of luck! – Aza24 (talk) 18:17, 24 March 2026 (UTC)
Comments by others
Physical disability
- 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)
Comments by judges
Comments by others
Rumi
- 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.
Comments by judges
Comments by others
Flatbread
- Nominator: vigilantcosmicpenguin
- Improvements: (start state + improvement diff)
- 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)
Comments by judges
Comments by others
Tortilla
- Nominator: vigilantcosmicpenguin
- Improvements: (start state + improvement diff)
- 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)
Comments by judges
Comments by others
José Rizal
- 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.
Comments by judges
Comments by others
Francisco Morazán
- 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.
Comments by judges
Comments by others
Andes
- 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)
Comments by judges
Comments by others
Human settlement
- Nominator: MallardTV
- Improvements: (start state + improvement diff)
- 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)