Forum:CT Archive/Featured Article Reform Proposal

Forums &gt; Consensus track &gt; 

Featured Article Reform Proposal
There has been a lot of recent talk about changing the procedure for the Featured Articles, especially considering the differences in quality in some of them. After discussion in the IRC channel, a number of Wookieepedians have agreed upon a revised set of guidelines and policies for creating and maintaining Featured Articles. Please vote on them and tell us of your opinions.

Proposal
Current guidelines look like this: An article must&hellip;


 * 1) &hellip;be well written and detailed
 * 2) &hellip;be unbiased, non-point of view
 * 3) &hellip;be sourced with all available sources and appearances
 * 4) &hellip;follow the Manual of Style and the Layout Guide
 * 5) &hellip;not be the object of any ongoing edit wars
 * 6) &hellip;not be tagged with any sort of improvement tags (i.e. more sources, expand, etc)
 * 7) &hellip;have a succinct proper lead that can be used for the front page featured box
 * 8) &hellip;have a reasonable amount of red links; use common sense
 * 9) &hellip;have a complete, detailed biography if it's a character article
 * 10) &hellip;not have been previously featured

Our proposal would add the following guidelines:
 * 1) &hellip;all quotes and images must be sourced
 * 2) &hellip;quotes must be provided on the article; a leading quote at the beginning is required, and at most one per section
 * 3) &hellip;no more than 3 redlinks will be allowed on a Featured Article This would replace item number 8 on the existing rules
 * 4) &hellip; Significant information from all available sources/appearances must be provided to classify as 'complete coverage' This would clarify items 1 and 9 on the existing rules
 * 5) &hellip; A personality and traits section must be on all character nominations
 * 6) &hellip; A reasonable number of images of good quality must appear on the article.
 * 7) &hellip; Behind the Scenes material must be properly referenced.

Voting on the New Rules
Support

Oppose

Comments

Objections

 * Objections, to avoid pointless objections such as "length" and "lack of exposure", would be clarified and condensed under the following guideline:
 * Your objection to a Featured Article nomination should reflect one of the rules listed above (preferably by number). Any objections that do not reflect the rules may be struck at the discretion of the Inquisitorius.

Voting on the New Objection Policy
Support

Oppose

Comments

Past Featured Articles

 * Past Featured Articles can sometimes fall behind in quality. We mean to allow FAs to be stripped of their status, by the Inquisitorius. The past FA notice on the talk page would not be removed, and the gold FA "era tag" star would be replaced by a gray star indicating a past Featured Article that has fallen into disrepair. Decisions on FA status removal would be decided by the Inquisitorius.

Voting on the Featured Article Removal Policy
Support

Oppose

Comments

The Inquisitorius

 * Much mention has been made about the Inquisitorius in this CT thread. Well, the best was saved for last. The Inquisitorius is a re-vamping of the current Peer review system. Composed of 7 trustworthy users (4 administrators and 3 users), the Inquisitorius would review every FA nomination. All FA noms would have to be approved by a quorum of at least 4 members, with no objections from an Inquisitor. Inquisitors would have the power to strike objections on the Featured Article nomination page, provided the objection has been addressed and the original objector has been absent for at least a week after an "objection addressed" comment is left on the FA nom page, but only with a quorum of at least 5 Inquisitors approving the removal of the objection, and none opposed. Finally, Inquisitors would have the power to strip an article of FA status, but only with unanimous approval of all 7 Inquistors.

An Inquisitor who is overly confrontational, argumentative, absent, or is otherwise unable to fulfill the duties of Inquisitor would be voted for removal by the other Inquisitors (including members at large), with at least 7 members voting to remove.

On a final note, there would be two Inquisitors-at-large who could fill in for Inquisitors who are unavailable over periods of more than a few days. An Inquisitor planning to be absent would merely need to inform that Inquisitor-at-large and the other Inquisitors on their page of the vacation, in order to maintain the quorums needed.

Voting on the Inquisitor Idea
Support

Oppose

Comments

Inquistorius Members

 * So, you say, wow- that's a lot of power over FAs to give these 7 folks. Who gets to control that power? Well, we've picked 7 people (4 admins and 3 users), along with two back-ups, who would be entrusted with this duty. They've been very active on the FA page, and are willing to accept the extra responsibility and hatred that comes with the position. However, we want you to let us know your opinion on these folks. (Note: Don't vote for yourself please, unless you don't want the job)

Atarumaster88 (admin)
Support

Oppose

Comments

Breathesgelatin (member at large)
Support

Oppose

Comments

Cull Tremayne (admin)
Support

Oppose

Comments

Darth Culator (admin)
Support

Oppose

Comments

Eyrezer (user)
Support

Oppose

Comments

Havac (user)
Support

Oppose

Comments

StarNeptune (admin)
Support

Oppose

Comments

Thefourdotelipsis (user)
Support

Oppose

Comments

Xwing328 (member-at-large)
Support

Oppose

Comments