Wookieepedia talk:Featured article nominations

Right, let's get crackin'.
 * First of all, how often should this be updated? Weekly? Biweekly? Monthly? Randomly?
 * Second, we should clarify the selection process. I, for one, want something like the one used in the Improvement drive.
 * Third, some sort of archive for winners should be created (perhaps in the style of Star Wars:Improvement drive/History). --Imp 19:46, 8 Aug 2005 (UTC)


 * I think we could cycle them through every two weeks. -- Riffsyphon1024 21:34, 8 Aug 2005 (UTC)

Well...
This page showed inactivity, so I decided to be bold and bolster it a bit by presenting one possible solution. The only thing that needs to be determined is how often featured articles will be updated. Uncyclopedia uses 3 days, but Star Wars doesn't have that much material to change them so often. I'd say a week, like the Improvement Drive.

As you may notice, the nominations are previous ID winners, just to have something for a start. This isn't really necessary. - Sikon 15:47, 26 Sep 2005 (UTC)
 * I vote for every other Sunday. MarcK 08:58, 29 Sep 2005 (UTC)

zOMG akbar is teh sweet

That guy on the front page

 * I was under the impression that he had only eight valid votes? Xilentshadow900 13:51, 16 Oct 2005 (UTC)
 * Yes, eight, like Clone trooper. However, the last vote for him was made ealier than for Clone trooper, and an anonymous vote, which usually doesn't count, was counted because of the uncertainty. - Sikon [ Talk ] 14:32, 16 Oct 2005 (UTC)
 * Figured thats what happened. Well, clone trooper is up next... Xilentshadow900 16:43, 16 Oct 2005 (UTC)
 * I'll be glad when the week is over. Though the reasons to feature the article were sound and I'm not disputing them, it still galls me to see StuporShadow prominently displayed on our main page. jSarek 23:27, 16 Oct 2005 (UTC)
 * I think the summary of his article is too positive. Would it be too grievous a violation of NPOV to work the words "liar" and "douchebag" into it? &mdash;Darth Culator   (talk)  23:36, 16 Oct 2005 (UTC)
 * It will be a NPOV violation, as well as non-encyclopedic. I think it is pretty obvious from the article that SS is nothing but a liar, despised by the vast majority of the community. - Sikon [ Talk ] 14:08, 17 Oct 2005 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but that would be considered vandalism...even if it is accurate. -- SFH 23:40, 16 Oct 2005 (UTC)
 * It's only vandalism if someone chooses to call it that and revert it, you know . . . ;-) jSarek 00:26, 17 Oct 2005 (UTC)
 * Seeing Supershadow's ugly mug on our front page makes me a sad panda. :( StarNeptune 00:31, 17 Oct 2005 (UTC)
 * It's only for a week. Weep not, dear panda, for in seven short days the cause of our pain shall be alleviated.  jSarek 00:52, 17 Oct 2005 (UTC)
 * Come on, that smug, self-satisfied look is a CLASSIC! QuentinGeorge 07:12, 17 Oct 2005 (UTC)
 * Yes! "scoring 24/7!" ;) --beeurd 20:05, 17 Oct 2005 (UTC)

Previously Featured Articles

 * I noticed that there was a section listing the articles that were previously featured earlier, but now it's gone. Should I put it back, or was it removed for a reason? AngelQueen 00:37, 17 Oct 2005 (UTC)
 * All of that is now in Featured article/History. MarcK 07:16, 17 Oct 2005 (UTC)
 * Great! Thanks, MarcK! AngelQueen 13:42, 17 Oct 2005 (UTC)

Hmmm...
It seems to me after looking at several of these articles, some are being a little too quick to nominate something to be featured. I feel that some of these need a little more work than they have. Adamwankenobi 03:01, 24 Oct 2005 (UTC)
 * Agreed - some people are nominating articles because they like the subject, though the article itself still needs work. &mdash; Silly Dan  03:47, 24 Oct 2005 (UTC)
 * Well, there is another option besides Supporting or not voting - if an article isn't up to snuff, vote "Oppose." jSarek 04:19, 24 Oct 2005 (UTC)
 * I also think that an article shouldn't be a featured nomination and an IDRIVE nomination at the same time. The featured are for articles that truly shine, IDRIVE's are ones that are in need of help. -- SFH 04:48, 18 Dec 2005 (UTC)

Elimination
How exactly do we get rid of unworthy nominations? Is it just like VFD where someone eventually decides a consensus has been reached one way or the other and acts accordingly? --MarcK [talk] 10:35, 25 Nov 2005 (UTC)
 * Sounds good to me! Adamwankenobi 20:07, 26 Nov 2005 (UTC)
 * I've brought this up on the consensus track page; see Consensus track/Featured article elimination process. --MarcK [talk] 11:07, 18 Dec 2005 (UTC)

Move
Move this to Featured article candidates and Featured article/History to Featured articles? --SparqMan 06:25, 25 Dec 2005 (UTC)

Removed
Um...why exactly was everything deleted? -- SFH 04:10, 8 Jan 2006 (UTC)
 * We've officially converted to the new objection system, so I've gotten rid of all nominations made during the old "majority rules" system. Feel free to re-nominate anything you nominated/voted for last time. --MarcK [talk] 04:14, 8 Jan 2006 (UTC)

Can it be nominated again?
I was wondering if it is possible to nominate an article to be a main page featured article once it has already been one before? Specifically I am referring to the Boba Fett page. A lot of additions have been made since it was a featured article. Is this just a one time thing or can it be nominated more than once?--DannyBoy7783 09:58, 12 Jan 2006 (UTC)
 * I realize that with the vast number of article here it would probably be a good idea to give other articles a chance to be nominated first before going to a second time around for existing FA but I was curious what the policy here would be.--DannyBoy7783 10:01, 12 Jan 2006 (UTC)
 * Maybe there should be a Consensus Track on this. Problem is, if we have previous featureds eligible again after, say 6 months, it would probably be the same articles being featured over and over again. I can see Palpatine being re-nominiated as soon as it was reeligible, and although it's a great article, do we really need to feature it every 6 months? Especially if there are other articles out there worthy enough to shine. StarNeptune 02:01, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
 * I think if enough changes are made to it between when it was featured and now then it is worth at least a nomination. I like the 6 month rule. --DannyBoy7783 06:25, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Format
Can we shift each article title from a level 3 header to a level 2? They really run into each other in a confusion of text. --SparqMan 00:27, 14 Jan 2006 (UTC)

Votes
Can we vote twice or only mods can? --Razzy1319 08:34, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
 * All registered users can vote as often as they like (so long as we only vote once per article, and don't vote for any articles with a cleanup tag.) &mdash; Silly Dan 12:43, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

So, how do we do this again?
We choose on sundays, Gilad was somehow chosen, what, 3 days ago with only 7 votes? I'm confused --Razzy1319 05:58, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
 * There's no set number of votes or anything. Basically, once a clear consensus is reached that the article's featured, then it's added to the queue. --MarcK [talk] 06:34, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Criterion for FA
We need something like this. --UVnet 14:51, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Erm, did you not see the "An article must..." list near the top of the page? --MarcK [talk] 18:23, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Addition to FA criteria
I think we should add something like this:

10. ...have a Behind the Scenes section.

or even

10. ...have a decent/detailed/whatever Behind the Scenes section.

What say you? --UVnet 22:19, 1 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Well, the problem is sometimes quite excellent articles really have no BTS info. Perhaps instead the requirement should be 10. A well rounded article, which means it would need a BTS if it had BTS data--Erl 22:39, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Fleshed out leads
Lately, the FA leads have been meager and the copy placed in the template unhelpful. Each article should have at least two paragraphs with roughly 200-250 words that sum up the entirety of the topic and its relevance, and those same words should be what appears on the front of the page. For example, see Wikipedia's feature of Joan of Arc: article and feature text. Does this seem like a reasonable requirement? --SparqMan 22:40, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
 * It does to me. - Breathesgelatin 03:33, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
 * I completely agree. So what are we going to do about it? --UVnet 07:30, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

how do we suggest an article
im new so i just dont know
 * There are instructions on the page on how to suggest an article. However, you do have to have a user account to do so.  StarNeptune Talk to me! 19:59, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

A few suggestions
I have a few suggestions.


 * How about (like wikipedia) articles will now have a limited time as a candidate, meaning that if it does not meet the requirements within a certain time limit it will be taken off the candidacy page (and 4 months is not what I'm talking about!).


 * How about individual pages for each FAC (also a-la-wikipedia).


 * What about de-featuring article? In my opinion some of the articles with feature status are.... well, lousy. --UVnet 08:03, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Nominations
I nominated Adi Gallia but it didn't show up on the nominations list--Master Plo Koon 22:02, 27 July 2006 (UTC)Master Plo Koon

Well I nominated "The Force" but that was deleted for some reason. Kalas Grengar 19:51, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Objections
I was just wondering, should the objections have # numbers instead of * bullet points? I may be wrong but isn't the amount of objections taken away from the amount of for votes? SecondSight 18:24, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
 * They should both (support and objections) use the #. Ugluk: Destroyer of Redlinks 18:52, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Actually, no. There has not been a standard procedure at wookieepedia regarding using # versus *. And the amount of objections is not taken away from the "for" votes. Read the page intro and this will be clear. Only one objection invalidates all the "for" votes and renders an article ineligible for FA. Only when all objections are eliminated and an article has at least 5 votes can it be an FA. - Breathesgelatin 14:19, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Inability to edit
Why can't I edit this page?-- Darth Nihilus (Ravager) 22:25, 5 October 2006 (UTC)