Forum:SH Archive/Increase CAN votes required

Considering that the latter attempt, to decrease the fast rhythm (and somewhat improve the quality) of Comprehensive articles, will not result in a community consensus and so, will be refuted, I wanted to present an option that may have the same advantages of the latter but lesser disadvantages.

Comprehensive articles are known as being of minor quality when compared to GAs or FAs, being criticized, despised but mostly ignored by many users. What I wanted to propose is, increasing the number of votes required (considering that the existent are way too few) from both users and ECs, to grant the respective nomination succesful and providing it with the CA status. Now, the reason I'm taking this to SH is because I'm not sure what the number of votes required should be. I'll just leave my idea here.

The 4th point of the CANs 'How to vote' section would be modified to:


 * Option A: "There are several ways in which an article can receive the required number of votes. Within a 48-hour period of nomination, only EduCorps votes will count towards the total, although anyone may choose to vote in that window. If five members of the EduCorps support a nomination in that window, and there are no outstanding objections, the article can be considered a "Comprehensive article" and be tagged with the template 48 hours after the initial nomination. The talk page will also be tagged with the {{CA} } template. When the 48 hours are up, any user's votes will contribute towards the total. If two EduCorps member has voted for an article after a week, five regular votes will be required. After the 48 hour period, an article can still also pass with four EduCorps votes." (more similar to the GANs requirements)


 * Option B: (...) If four members of the EduCorps support a nomination in that window, and there are no outstanding objections, the article can be considered a "Comprehensive article" and be tagged with the template 48 hours after the initial nomination. The talk page will also be tagged with the  template. When the 48 hours are up, any user's votes will contribute towards the total. If two EduCorps member has voted for an article after a week, three regular votes will be required. After the 48 hour period, an article can still also pass with just three EduCorps votes.


 * Option C: Give your own.

Honestly, I'm more inclined to option B, as we have also to consider the low number of active ECs. I'll take this to CT in a week or so, unless anyone is able to provide a good point on why this shouldn't be applied. Discuss. Winterz (talk) 21:22, February 19, 2013 (UTC)
 * I do think 5 EC votes is way to many, as we don't have that many constant EC reviewers. Sure, we get the occasional on where everyone votes for it, but that's once a week. Having five EC votes required is a bit much. As for the two ECs and three normal, what if we have 3 ECs and 2 normal, would that be considered a pass, as technically that ranks higher than the former. Three EC votes at the most would be the requirement for the first two days I think, with 2 EC and three normal being the requirements for after that period. I'm not sure if this wiull actually work. It might just stall the CAN page, with every nom a vote or two a way, as it requires more ECs to be active on the page, which is something I don't see happening. Alternatively, we could raise the number of normal votes required after the two days. We have, I think, a few more non ECs that ECs reviewing, and an extra set of eyes, even if they weren't an EC, still helps and might not stall the page as much. 501st  dogma ( talk ) 03:01, February 20, 2013 (UTC)
 * The number of reviewers has increased in recent days. At the top of my head I can count at least 4 ECs and 6 other users, and those are the regulars. The stalling isn't a problem in the GANs page, so it shouldn't be a problem here. Also worth noting that the reasons of why some more experienced users stay away from the CAN section is because of some CANs' quality. You know the CAN board needs a change in some aspect, I'm just pointing out one solution as you already did, mate. Winterz (talk) 04:18, February 20, 2013 (UTC)
 * I honestly don't think that there's anything about the CAN system that needs fixing. If more activity is needed on the CAN page, that's not a fault of the system, and raising the number of votes required won't change a thing. Maybe people's attitudes toward the CAN page need to be changed, but the system doesn't. Menkooroo (talk) 03:48, February 20, 2013 (UTC)
 * You misunderstand my point. I'm not trying to fix its activity, I'm trying to fix its quality. I believe 2 ECs votes is way too low and most noms are able to pass in a single day. The noms should stall at least for a few days or with more than two reviews, that's where my opinion stands, that's the main reason I give to the so-hardly criticized CAs quality. Winterz (talk) 03:53, February 20, 2013 (UTC)
 * But CA's can't pass in a day. They are required to be there at least two days, and most stay there for at least three or four days. Most also get more user reviews than EC votes. Cade   Calrayn  StupidRepublicEmblem-Traced-TORkit.svg 03:56, February 20, 2013 (UTC)
 * And for that reason, reviewing activity should not be a problem for the OT. Most nominations that stay there for more than 3 days are the ones with pending objections. Winterz (talk) 04:08, February 20, 2013 (UTC)
 * This is the first I'm hearing about users "despising" the CAN, or thinking it's somehow inferior. If that's the case, that's a fault of the reviewers, not the system or the nominators. Honestly, if there are issues with articles passing, that's what CAR is for. I'm not sure adding more hurdles to the system will help anything. ~ Savage BOB sig.png 12:43, February 20, 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm with Bob. Not to say that's untrue, but I've never heard about CAs being despised. 5 EC votes to me is excessive, given that that's what GAs require. I sincerely think the only real problem the CA nominations is the lack of active EC reviewers.  Stake black   msg 13:05, February 20, 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm only acquainted with one such cases, but that's not the point. It's more than clear that most ignore the CAN section, generally because of the articles' quality. It's not about the reviewers being bad, otherwise why would GANs/FANs need so many ACs/Inqs votes? It's a matter of it being reviewed by several experienced and less-experienced eyes, a pair is just not enough. Winterz (talk) 21:02, February 20, 2013 (UTC)
 * That's not clear at all. People tend to take on long-term projects and necessarily just write longer stuff, or they're are on the review panels and are committed to reviewing the longer nominations. The CAN was created to accommodate smaller articles that were being ignored completely, not to change the inclination of most editors to take on big stuff. The CAN was intended to be a stage production, while the GAN and FAN are the Hollywood blockbusters. The stage is smaller, but is no less (and sometimes more) technically accurate than the big-budget films. I'm thinking about going to the opera next month, actually. La Traviata is playing. NaruHina  Talk Anakinsolo.png 22:50, February 20, 2013 (UTC)
 * I actually would be in favor of increasing the number of EC votes for the 48 hour initial period. Not to five, but I would be in favor of it. As it sits, it is possible for a nomination to go through with only two votes within two days, and I don't think that's right because if it doesn't get through in those two days it has to wait a week and be reviewed several more times. That doesn't really make sense to me. Why do we even have that corollary? I'd actually be in favor of removing that 48 hour period entirely. However, I'd like to point out again, since I'm sure no-one read that monster post on the previous forum, that changing the rules in ways like this, so that it's not targeted at helping people who nominate articles that aren't ready do better jobs, there won't be an increase in quality. It'll just be the new normal of the system, and if people are abusing the current normal they will abuse the next one, too. NaruHina  Talk Anakinsolo.png 20:29, February 20, 2013 (UTC)
 * What would you suggest then as an option? (numbers) Winterz (talk) 21:02, February 20, 2013 (UTC)
 * (Assuming "an option with numbers." Usually, I'm pretty good at gleaning meaning, but this is one of those times I get confused.) The crux of my concern with your initiative, Winterz, is that I don't think an option where we just swish numbers around is going to work at all to increase quality. Yes, it would stem the flow of output, but that doesn't mean the quality of the articles being nominated would be better. It would decrease the number of articles on the nomination page, but you can't improve how well people write this way. It's targeting the former hoping that the latter will follow, when we can and should just aim at the latter. Worse, it's targeting the bad nominators without telling them that "this rule exists to keep you from doing something stupid." They won't know that's what you intended, ad they won't learn the lesson from it. That said, whatever numerical bar you set, there will always be people who will to try to scrape by under it. And we shouldn't let them. We don't let them as it is. As an option, I will suggest again (third time's the charm) that we have a system in place for forcing problem nominators to take complete timeouts from the nomination pages to be mentored by a veteran editor. That way, they get talked to and told what's going wrong like I want, they get off the page like you want, and they come out of it with advice from more experienced writers. NaruHina  Talk Anakinsolo.png 22:42, February 20, 2013 (UTC)
 * The mentorship thing might work. We should do a CT on it to see what others think. On the other hand, how about changing the shortest period a CAN can pass in to three days? Two days sometimes lets CANs get past some of the editors who want to look at them. 501st  dogma ( talk ) 23:05, February 20, 2013 (UTC)