Additional comments from the Committee: The proposed project presents an interesting and creative re-use of Wikipedia content. However, there does not appear to be any potential for impact on the Wikimedia projects themselves, as there is no plan to integrate the software with Wikipedia or otherwise use it within the projects.

If they were able to successfully provide this tool, it could be really good.

Creating a graph database representing Wikipedia content is a worthwhile goal, which is well within the Wikimedia's strategic priorities. It certainly will have a significant online impact, can be scaled and sustained.

I like the idea of the project and what it seeks to achieve. Creating an interactive interface can surge the number of readers and bring a whole new immersion to Wikipedia.

It will require significant resource to keep such graphs up-to-date even for en.wiki only

I question the value-add of the tool considering how reliable other tools like Wikidata Query Service have become. It's not clear who and for what purpose is going to use this tool after the project is done.

It might be impactful if done appropriately - graphs of WIkimedia articles have a wide variety of applications, including bots and further research.

The proposed measures of success are not specific, and do not appear to relate to impact within the Wikimedia movement. While the proposed work is not particularly high-risk, the lack of any clear impact potential means that the risk-relative-to-impact is still significant.

The project has a great potential but in my opinion the projects lacks a member that can bring an additional value to focus the project around the solution to a problem. The proposal is going around several problems but none is clearly identified.

I would like to see better engagement from the Wikimedia community.

The main idea is both innovative and builds on the existing solution developed both by the grantee and community. The project has well defined goals but its measures of success and targets need further work: they are not very specific. The grantee has a plan and the project, if successful, will likely have a long lasting impact on Wikimedia projects.

Nice idea but I am not sure about the usability of this tool for wide audience - it will be nice for technically experienced Wikimedians but not general readers.

I’m not sure this tool is useful for our community. It presents a nice UX but I don't think it's really needed.

The proposed scope and budget seem realistic, and the participants are well-qualified to develop a tool of the sort proposed.

I am concerned about how they will fill the skills gap identified in the proposal, especially around marketing and events which is crucial to the success of the project.

The project may be executed with 8 months but there is little information about the grantee. I am not sure he has ability to execute the proposal.

The experience and background of the grantee is unclear.

There does not appear to be a significant degree of community engagement, and the proposed engagement strategy principally targets external communities rather than the Wikimedia movement. It’s unusual that the majority of the endorsements are done by IPs.

Upon checking the contributions of the grantee, I realized that there was no history or contributions on any project. The grantee must have created the account just for the purpose of the grant, this then brings me to the question, "What informed his decision to do this?". How sure are we going to be about his ability to deliver on this project, also having no ties with the community to me is risky (especially in terms of going according to budget).

There low to none community engaged in this project. I am not sure if the community really needs this tool.

This is a creative proposal, but the benefits to the Wikimedia movement need to be more clearly articulated. I suggest considering whether and how the proposed software tool might be used within the Wikimedia projects, or used by external researchers to evaluate Wikipedia content, before re-submitting the proposal.

The proposal should be reviewed by members of the developer community. In particular, the credentials of the grantee and their ability to actually execute the project should be checked.

The grantee should be encouraged to further develop this proposal even if it is not accepted for funding in the current round.

I like the idea and will be excited to see it go through, however my only concern is sustainability. The grantee claims to continue hosting the site after the project on personal funds but to me that's not feasible

Arc.heolo.gy would be a great tool for users to find what they are looking for on Wikipedia. This tool may also be useful for researchers to map Wikipedia's knowledge and to demonstrate the knowledge gaps on Wikimedia. The budget is reasonable and the goals appear to be realistic.