Forum:CT Archive/Comprehensive articles

Stemming from this, we have undergone a trial run for the proposal for Comprehensive articles, a new initiative intended to create a minor tier of article milestone, intended to inform out readers when a topic that has under 250 words of content is indeed as comprehensive as it can possibly be. The trial has been a success, I think, moving in a relatively streamlined fashion that has both seen a lot of participation, without the page being clogged to death. People seem to have understood, and a lot of the kinks have been worked out on the talk page. If anyone is curious as to what the actual rules of the process are, I would advise them to look at the now-locked page of the trial run, since it might just get cluttered if they're all posted here again.

Basically, this CT will be a compound of several smaller CTs. The first will be to decide whether or not the process as a whole is implemented. Then there will be several ancillary CTs to decide some of the specifics. Some of these will pertain to CAN rules&mdash;in the event of no consensus being reached on them, and the absence of an actual policy to revert to, I would suggest that the trial page in its current state represent the status quo, although obviously that is up to the discretion of the closing administrator.

Comprensive articles process
This vote is to decide whether or not the comprehensive article process, as demonstrated by the trial page, is to be implemented.

Support

 * 1) I've made my arguments pretty clear in the original CT: I think this will be an invaluable tool for telling our readers what is "comprehensive" and what is not. It's a remarkably painless process, it allows more timid or unsure writers to have a punt without all the sturm und drang of other processes, and it's as unobtrusive as it could possibly be. I think that the rules have been very clear to most writers, we've seen a lot of participation, and basically I think we've seen that this can and does work, plain and simple. Thefourdotelipsis 01:26, July 1, 2010 (UTC)
 * 2)  IFYLOFD  ( Floyd's crib ) 01:28, July 1, 2010 (UTC)
 * 3) Per Fourdot. Jonjedigrandmaster  ( Talk ) 01:31, July 1, 2010 (UTC)
 * 4)  01:54, July 1, 2010 (UTC)

Grey Cadre
This vote is to decide whether or not the Grey Cadre user group will be initiated. To sum up, the Grey Cadre is a collection of all Inquisitors and ACs, as well as any other users potentially judged by members of either the Inq or the ACs to be fit to provide a "qualified" review on a CAN. This is not an analogue to either the INQ or the AC&mdash;rather, it is a list of users who can provide GC votes on CANs, which are the equivalent of three user votes. There are also several other different rules pertaining to GCs, which are outlined on the trial page. Furthermore, GCs are able to strike answered objections that have been untouched for a week.

Support

 * 1) Basically, I think this is a good thing, if we keep it remarkably simple. If it's kept as simply a list, rather than a formal review panel, there's no feeling of real obligation for the Inqs and ACs, who have a lot of other work to do on the FAN and GAN pages, which are genuinely more important processes. Basically, as it expands, the way I look at it is "these are people we are trusting to give qualified reviews on something under 250 words." Of course, things can go wrong in under 250 words, but I really think that this will be a good way of streamlining the process. Thefourdotelipsis 01:26, July 1, 2010 (UTC)
 * 2)  IFYLOFD  ( Floyd's crib ) 01:28, July 1, 2010 (UTC)
 * 3) I thought this worked pretty well in the trial run. Jonjedigrandmaster  ( Talk ) 01:32, July 1, 2010 (UTC)
 * 4)  01:54, July 1, 2010 (UTC)

GC or EC
This is a vote to decide whether the "Grey Cadre" will indeed be called the "Grey Cadre" or the "EduCorps"

Grey Cadre

 * 1) I just prefer this name, since it doesn't sound like an analogue for the "AgriCorps"&mdash;because it's really not meant to be. The core of it is made up of grizzled vets from the review panels, so it kinda fits. It doesn't matter, really, but... hey, WEG reference! Thefourdotelipsis 01:26, July 1, 2010 (UTC)
 * 2)  IFYLOFD  ( Floyd's crib ) 01:28, July 1, 2010 (UTC)
 * 3)  01:54, July 1, 2010 (UTC)

EduCorps

 * 1) The definition of "EduCorps" from our own article: The Educational Corps, also known as the EduCorps, was a branch of the Jedi Service Corps that was similar to the Agricultural Corps and the Medical Corps. This group of Jedi Knights consisted of students of the Force who were in training during the days of the Old Republic. Their mission was to provide educational needs to the underprivileged children of the galaxy. If that doesn't spell out exactly what the point of the CAN is, I don't know what does. This is the most appropriate choice. We have a nice theme going with the "Inquisitorius" and the "AgriCorps," and the name of this formal reviewing body should stay with this Wookieepedia lineage that we have firmly established for ourselves. "EduCorps" is significantly appropriate in regards to the FAN and GAN page, it has a nice ring to it, it's funny in the same way that "Inq" and "AC" is for those who actually have the right sense of humor, and it helps reinforce the idea that this is a separate reviewing body and process from the FAN and GAN pages. Toprawa and Ralltiir 02:01, July 1, 2010 (UTC)

GC voting process
This is a vote to decide whether a formalized GC voting process will be initiated. It will take the form of a standard Forum, in which users can nominate others, or even submit themselves for GC candidacy. Everyone will be able to vote, and like the RFAs, a 2/3rds supermajority of both users and GCs will require for anyone to be added to the GC list.

Support

 * 1) Since this is a fairly minor process, and rather informal, I think it would be good to give users more involvement in the GC element of the process. Since existing Inqs and ACs have to sign off on nominations, it's not as though the list will flood with incompetent individuals. Thefourdotelipsis 01:26, July 1, 2010 (UTC)
 * 2)  IFYLOFD  ( Floyd's crib ) 01:28, July 1, 2010 (UTC)
 * 3) I actually find myself liking this idea a lot; sounds pretty fair to everybody. I wouldn't mind having it just straight-up internal, but this is not just a new tier of article class, it is also a stepping-stone process for getting new users involved and up to quality; and I can't think of a better way of getting more reviewers involved and up to quality than this. Jonjedigrandmaster  ( Talk ) 01:34, July 1, 2010 (UTC)
 * 4)  01:54, July 1, 2010 (UTC)
 * 5) IIRC, the original idea was just to have one person nominate someone and then have one or two more people sign off on it and then they were in. This is far and above a more logical way of doing it. Toprawa and Ralltiir 01:56, July 1, 2010 (UTC)

One GC vote required
This is a vote to decide whether or not at least one Grey Cadre vote will be required on every comprehensive article nomination in order for it to pass.

Support

 * 1)  IFYLOFD  ( Floyd's crib ) 01:28, July 1, 2010 (UTC)
 * 2) Unless you plan on performing a sock-check on voters, I'm in favor of this. SinisterSamurai 01:37, July 1, 2010 (UTC)
 * 3) I would actually prefer 2 GC votes&mdash;the reason being that I glanced at one nom that had passed with just 1 GC vote, and it had the basic mistake of underlinking; and one of these missing links was essential to the article's topic, too. I don't think that something like that should be able to get by the process so easily, and that's something that the requirement of an extra GC vote could likely prevent. However, I'd be willing to settle for 1 GC, because 1 GC is a far better idea than none. Jonjedigrandmaster  ( Talk ) 01:44, July 1, 2010 (UTC)
 * 4) Support. Oh my God. You might have to wait an extra 48 hours for your article to pass. Tough titty. This makes sure things aren't necessarily being railroaded through. Toprawa and Ralltiir 02:06, July 1, 2010 (UTC)

Oppose

 * 1) I actually don't like this. Basically, I think that anything under 250 words can be trusted to be given a thorough review by six users. At any rate, there is a week grace period for every nomination, in which it would not be able to pass without any GC involvement whatsoever. I think if GC members are concerned that there might be a quality deficit, they've got an entire week to read 250 words. And with the number of Inqs, it shouldn't be a problem to cover all nominations, honestly. I just feel that requiring one GC vote has the potential to bog down the page, much like the FA and GA processes. I also think it is beneficial for the GCs to have no actual obligations to distract them from the FAN and GAN pages, outside of striking neglected objections and removing articles that are below par. Thefourdotelipsis 01:26, July 1, 2010 (UTC)

Creation of a CAN removal process
This vote will decide whether or not we create a formalized CA removal process. This would function as a sort of anti-CAN page&mdash;any CANs in need of an update or that have fallen can be nominated by anyone, and then after a week, if the updates have not been made, the articles will be removed by two GC members. At any rate, if an update does indeed have to be made to a CA, it is likely that in many cases it will push the article over 250 words, and therefore they will no longer fall under the CA rules.

Support

 * 1) This is obviously needed. It would be much more simple than the FA and GA removal processes in effect, since it would not require IRC meetings and the like, but would rather be a continuous process. It would function in much the same way as the other processes, though, where any user can nominate an article, and the GCs remove it afterward. Thefourdotelipsis 01:26, July 1, 2010 (UTC)
 * 2)  IFYLOFD  ( Floyd's crib ) 01:28, July 1, 2010 (UTC)
 * 3) Sounds good to me. Jonjedigrandmaster  ( Talk ) 01:45, July 1, 2010 (UTC)
 * 4)  01:54, July 1, 2010 (UTC)

Oppose

 * 1) The description of this function doesn't spell it out adequately enough for me. Will there be a straight "Support-Oppose" vote for articles nominated for removal? What if someone contends that the article is in fact satisfactory for keeping? How do they go about voicing and possibly opposing removal? Frankly, until these questions are answered and actually included in the function description, I will vote oppose. Toprawa and Ralltiir 02:05, July 1, 2010 (UTC)

General comments

 * Any general elements of discussion, or any further mini-CTs you would like to add to this, please discuss here first. Thefourdotelipsis 01:26, July 1, 2010 (UTC)