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. Only one quote would be allowed at the beginning of each section at max, although quotes may be placed in the middle of the article.
 * 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 if said images are available.
 * 7) &hellip; Behind the scenes material must be properly referenced.

Voting on the New Rules
Support
 * 1) .  .  .  .  05:56, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
 * 2) Cull Tremayne 06:00, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
 * 3) Atarumaster88  [[Image:Jedi_Order.jpg|20px]] ( Audience Chamber ) 06:01, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
 * 4) This is a lot of voting. Havac 06:06, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
 * 5) This is needed.  StarNeptune Talk to me! 06:21, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
 * 6) As long as we change it so that it only needs images if there are some available and that it's possible to have more than one quote in a section, because sometimes it looks good with more than one. &mdash;Jaymach Ral'Tir (talk) 06:28, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
 * 7) *Addressed in update. Atarumaster88  [[Image:Jedi_Order.jpg|20px]] ( Audience Chamber ) 06:31, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
 * 8) Darth Culator  (Talk)(Kills) 06:30, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
 * 9) LtNOWIS 06:31, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
 * 10) QuentinGeorge 06:37, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
 * 11) Green Tentacle (Talk) 13:46, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
 * 12) Chack Jadson 14:03, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
 * 15:49, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) Jaina Solo ( Goddess Stuff ) [[Image:Jainasolosig.gif |25px]] 16:14, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
 * 16:32, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) &mdash;Silly Dan (talk) 17:58, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Oppose

Comments
 * This was needed long ago. .  .  .  .  05:56, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I think a length requirement would actually be a good idea, perhaps a minimum of 1000 words, because otherwise even quite small articles could qualify for FA. If the objection system becomes more specific, I think there does need to be an objection that says this is just "notable" enough. Most current FAs are well over this word limit although some are close (Drovian: ~1600, Ebenn: ~1200). To illustrate my point, an article like Cha'a fits all the above criteria (except the intro), yet I don't think it should qualify as an FA. It just isn't worthy of being featured.
 * And to clarify the requirement for sourcing images, I think it should specifically require use of the Template:Information to qualify as sourced. --Eyrezer 09:22, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Ditto with the template. Talking about the length...if it's not long enough for FA, but just as complete, that's what GA should be for. 16:32, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

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
 * 1) .  .  .  .  05:57, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
 * 2) Atarumaster88  [[Image:Jedi_Order.jpg|20px]] ( Audience Chamber ) 06:00, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
 * 3) Cull Tremayne 06:00, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
 * 4) This is a lot of voting. Havac 06:06, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
 * 5)  StarNeptune Talk to me! 06:21, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
 * 6) &mdash;Jaymach Ral'Tir (talk) 06:28, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
 * 7) Darth Culator  (Talk)(Kills) 06:30, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
 * 8) LtNOWIS 06:31, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
 * 9) QuentinGeorge 06:37, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
 * 10) Green Tentacle (Talk) 13:47, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
 * 11) Chack Jadson 14:03, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
 * 15:50, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) Jaina Solo ( Goddess Stuff ) [[Image:Jainasolosig.gif |25px]] 16:14, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
 * 2) &mdash;Silly Dan (talk) 17:59, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Comments
 * Needed this for Panaka. .  .  .  .  05:57, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

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
 * 1) .  .  .  .  05:57, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
 * 2) Cull Tremayne 06:00, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
 * 3) Atarumaster88  [[Image:Jedi_Order.jpg|20px]] ( Audience Chamber ) 06:01, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
 * 4) This is a lot of voting. Havac 06:06, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
 * 5) A necessary evil.  StarNeptune Talk to me! 06:21, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
 * 6) Darth Culator  (Talk)(Kills) 06:30, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
 * 7) QuentinGeorge 06:37, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
 * 8) MyNz 09:29, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
 * 9) Green Tentacle (Talk) 13:48, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
 * 15:52, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Oppose Comments
 * 1) Voted against this before, and will again. &mdash;Jaymach Ral'Tir (talk) 06:28, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
 * 2) Whether or not they are not up to current standards doesn't take away the fact the they were once featured. Chack Jadson 14:03, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
 * 3) *It's not taking away the fact that it was once featured. The FA tag on the talk page will still be there, and the yellow star in the corner will be replaced with a gray one. All removal of FA status does is signify that the article is no longer up to par. If people want to keep an article at FA status, they should work hard to keep it up to date.  StarNeptune Talk to me! 14:34, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
 * 4) Jaina Solo ( Goddess Stuff ) [[Image:Jainasolosig.gif |25px]] 16:14, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Would this mean that FAs in disrepair would be able to, once fixed, become full FA (through the voting) again? 15:52, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Of course. Atarumaster88  [[Image:Jedi_Order.jpg|20px]] ( Audience Chamber ) 16:04, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

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.

This will necessitate the creation of Inquisitorius, which will be used to aid this body in their work.

Voting on the Inquisitor Idea
Support Oppose
 * 1) Kinda sorta half came up with the idea. Well, the name at least. .  .  .  .  05:58, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
 * 2) Atarumaster88  [[Image:Jedi_Order.jpg|20px]] ( Audience Chamber ) 06:02, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
 * 3) Cull Tremayne 06:03, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
 * 4) This is a lot of voting. Havac 06:06, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
 * 5)  StarNeptune Talk to me! 06:21, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
 * 6) Darth Culator  (Talk)(Kills) 06:30, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
 * 7) QuentinGeorge 06:37, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
 * 8) Provided we include a few more trustworthy normal registered users. MyNz 09:27, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
 * 9) This would solve a lot of FA problems. 15:53, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) This promotes elitism on a site that's meant to be run by democracy. Having a group of people who are essentially "better" and "more trusted" than anyone else just seems like a bad idea to me. &mdash;Jaymach Ral'Tir (talk) 06:28, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
 * 2) *Wookieepedia is not a democracy. It is a Mofference. Havac 06:45, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
 * 3) Per Jaymach. Besides, I don't like that 6 of the 9 nominees are admins.– 07:36, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
 * 4) *Breathes and Ataru got adminship BECAUSE of their devotion to FA, and XWing328 is very active over at GA. Why punish them for it because the community decided they become admins? It shouldn't matter...people can still care about the quality of FAs, admin status or not. It just seems that right now, it's mainly a small portion of admins and and a select few dedicated users that DO seem to care about FA quality.  StarNeptune Talk to me! 14:34, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
 * 5) Per Jaymach. Green Tentacle (Talk) 13:52, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
 * 6) I say we need two admins. That doesn't mean the rest are all users, just that we need a minimum of two admins. There could still be four admins and three users, or two admins and five users. Chack Jadson 14:03, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
 * 7) *See, the proposed current setup has 4 admins and three users. The other two (who happen to be admins) are backups for when one or more of the regulars are unavailable.

Comments
 * cough* Admins. *cough*. .  .  .  .  06:31, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
 * For everyone who is voting to oppose, I'd just like to point out that the people who are being nom'd for the Inquisitorius have actually been very active in FA noms before. All this would be is to give the people who are highly active in the FA process a little more oversight in making sure that the articles were really worthy of being featured. The main body is fairly balanced (4 admins and 3 members) on purpose. And of course, if any new policy from above (say, removal of FA status), then the Inquisitorius wouldn't have it. That's why there are several votes. Atarumaster88  [[Image:Jedi_Order.jpg|20px]] ( Audience Chamber ) 15:54, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

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
 * 1) The Duke. .  .  .  .  05:58, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
 * 2) This is a lot of voting. Havac 06:04, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
 * 3) Cull Tremayne 06:18, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
 * 4)  StarNeptune Talk to me! 06:21, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
 * 5) Darth Culator  (Talk)(Kills) 06:30, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
 * 6) QuentinGeorge 06:37, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
 * 16:02, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) Jaina Solo ( Goddess Stuff ) [[Image:Jainasolosig.gif |25px]] 16:14, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Comments

Breathesgelatin (member at large)
Support Oppose
 * 1) .  .  .  .  05:58, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
 * 2) Atarumaster88  [[Image:Jedi_Order.jpg|20px]] ( Audience Chamber ) 06:03, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
 * 3) This is a lot of voting. Havac 06:04, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
 * 4) Cull Tremayne 06:05, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
 * 5)  StarNeptune Talk to me! 06:21, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
 * 6) Darth Culator  (Talk)(Kills) 06:30, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
 * 7) QuentinGeorge 06:37, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
 * 16:02, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Comments

Cull Tremayne (admin)
Support
 * 1) .  .  .  .  05:59, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
 * 2) This is a lot of voting. Havac 06:03, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
 * 3) Atarumaster88  [[Image:Jedi_Order.jpg|20px]] ( Audience Chamber ) 06:04, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
 * 4)  StarNeptune Talk to me! 06:21, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
 * 5) Darth Culator  (Talk)(Kills) 06:30, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
 * 6) QuentinGeorge 06:37, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
 * 16:02, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Oppose

Comments

Darth Culator (admin)
Support Oppose
 * 1) .  .  .  .  05:59, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
 * 2) This is a lot of voting. Havac 06:03, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
 * 3) Cull Tremayne 06:07, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
 * 4) Atarumaster88  [[Image:Jedi_Order.jpg|20px]] ( Audience Chamber ) 06:08, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
 * 5)  StarNeptune Talk to me! 06:21, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
 * 6) QuentinGeorge 06:37, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
 * 16:02, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) Jaina Solo ( Goddess Stuff ) [[Image:Jainasolosig.gif |25px]] 16:14, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Comments

Eyrezer (user)
Support Oppose
 * 1) .  .  .  .  05:59, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
 * 2) This is a lot of voting. Havac 06:03, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
 * 3) Atarumaster88  [[Image:Jedi_Order.jpg|20px]] ( Audience Chamber ) 06:08, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
 * 4) Cull Tremayne 06:17, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
 * 5)  StarNeptune Talk to me! 06:21, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
 * 6) Darth Culator  (Talk)(Kills) 06:30, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
 * 7) QuentinGeorge 06:37, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
 * 8) You are one of my best buddies here. MyNz 09:25, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
 * 16:02, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Comments

Havac (user)
Support Oppose
 * 1) Cull Tremayne 06:02, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
 * 2) Damn, missed Havac. .  .  .  .  06:05, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
 * 3) Atarumaster88  [[Image:Jedi_Order.jpg|20px]] ( Audience Chamber ) 06:09, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
 * 4)  StarNeptune Talk to me! 06:21, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
 * 5) Darth Culator  (Talk)(Kills) 06:30, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
 * 6) QuentinGeorge 06:37, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
 * 16:02, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Comments
 * Terribly needed. Cull Tremayne 06:02, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Aww. It's good to be needed. Then again, why do I suspect this was intended for one of the policies? ;) Havac 06:17, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

StarNeptune (admin)
Support Oppose
 * 1) .  .  .  .  05:59, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
 * 2) This is a lot of voting. Havac 06:02, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
 * 3) Cull Tremayne 06:05, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
 * 4) Atarumaster88  [[Image:Jedi_Order.jpg|20px]] ( Audience Chamber ) 06:07, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
 * 5) Darth Culator  (Talk)(Kills) 06:30, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
 * 6) QuentinGeorge 06:37, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
 * 16:02, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) Jaina Solo ( Goddess Stuff ) [[Image:Jainasolosig.gif |25px]] 16:14, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Comments

Thefourdotelipsis (user)
Support Oppose
 * 1) This is a lot of voting. Havac 06:02, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
 * 2) Cull Tremayne 06:04, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
 * 3) Atarumaster88  [[Image:Jedi_Order.jpg|20px]] ( Audience Chamber ) 06:07, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
 * 4)  StarNeptune Talk to me! 06:21, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
 * 5) Darth Culator  (Talk)(Kills) 06:30, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
 * 6) QuentinGeorge 06:37, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
 * 16:02, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) Jaina Solo ( Goddess Stuff ) [[Image:Jainasolosig.gif |25px]] 16:14, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Comments

Xwing328 (member-at-large)
Support Oppose
 * 1) .  .  .  .  05:59, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
 * 2) This is a lot of voting. Havac 06:02, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
 * 3) Atarumaster88  [[Image:Jedi_Order.jpg|20px]] ( Audience Chamber ) 06:06, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
 * 4) Cull Tremayne 06:17, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
 * 5)  StarNeptune Talk to me! 06:21, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
 * 6) Darth Culator  (Talk)(Kills) 06:30, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
 * 7) QuentinGeorge 06:37, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
 * 16:02, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) Jaina Solo ( Goddess Stuff ) [[Image:Jainasolosig.gif |25px]] 16:14, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Comments