Hi Gnangarra I've heard bad things about the articles for creation process, but a minimum of either 1.5 kb or 2,000 bytes of prose is a new one on me. Can you link to that part of the AFC rules? I have reread things such as https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/ Reviewing_instructions and found one perfectly sensible comment about deleting single sentence "articles". But 1,000 bytes would be a jolly long sentence. AFC has its flaws, and I wouldn't recommend it to anyone, but is it really as flawed as you assert? As for the women in red contest, you might want to read the rules, and if you have concerns there is a currently redlinked talkpage. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_ talk:WikiProject_Women_in_Red/The_World_Contest/Rules& action=edit&redlink=1 I've made a couple of bold tweaks to the competition rules myself, but they did already cover notability and of course copyvio. Though a contest aimed at existing editors is less likely to hit problems in those areas as an outreach editathon targeted at new editors - there we do need to explain our notability rules and sadly often teach people about copyright and plagiarism. As for criticising a project for aiming for 100,000 articles when they only have 4 judges and 108 participants, it is two weeks until it starts and they have a watchlist notice up to recruit more people either as participants or judges note https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Women_ in_Red/The_World_Contest/Rules -* "If you want to help judge the contest or help out with running it please ensure that you add your name in the judges section on the main page"* I could understand at the end of a project having that sort of criticism if they had got ambitious but not tried to recruit enough participants. However at this stage such criticism is premature and probably misdirected. A more nuanced view would be to look at the end and check whether they succeeded in their objective and whether they achieved sufficient participation both of editors and judges. Criticising a project that doesn't start for another two weeks for having insufficient judges and participants when it currently in a major site wide recruitment drive for judges and participants seems premature to me. Alternatively one could look at the objective and ask whether creating 100,000 articles on women was sufficient, insufficient or excessive to deal with the known gender gap in our coverage. The 100,000 target looks about right to me and it will be interesting to see how much progress people can make on it in a one month contest, but if someone is uncomfortable about it it would be sensible to go through the figures and check if that is an appropriate target for the problem. Treating such an ambitious target as a problem without acknowledging that Wikipedia has coverage gaps on that scale comes across almost as denial of the problem. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Creation created. _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/ wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/ wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>