Forum:SH Archive/Featured article queue change

Those of you have been around for some time will probably remember that we used to showcase one featured article on the main page each week. As the number of FAs grew, the FA queue got longer and longer and a CT in August 2007 agreed to feature two articles a week, each one showing for 3.5 days. The queue continued to grow rapidly and another CT later that year decided to switch to a different FA on the main page every day from the start of 2009, providing "the FA production rate surpasses or equals an average of one successful nom per day."

Well, we never quite achieved that. Since we started daily FAs, we've averaged around 5 new FAs a week. Over the last three months of 2010 this dropped to around 2.5 a week. The queue is shrinking rapidly and now only goes as far as May. At our current production and consumption rates, the daily FAs are not sustainable.

This was discussed at the recent meeting of the Inquisitorius. In summary, we're still producing too many to return to one a week, and while returning to two a week would be better, it would likely still result in the queue growing since we pass this even at our least productive. Overall it was felt that a switch to showcasing a different FA every other day, or 3.5 a week would be the best way to maintain the queue in the long term.

We still have some time before this needs to be implemented, so if there are other ideas which might work, let us know here. Otherwise we will be implementing this to start from April 2. Green Tentacle (Talk) 22:27, January 19, 2011 (UTC) 0AotL7G6dqTBodEtSRFYzaG9jYXNwUERsVVhqS1hFMnc&single=true&gid=4
 * Just out of morbid curiosity, what was the FA average between, oh, say... mid April last year to the end of June? I seem to recall a protracted queue surge of some sort that required nothing other than good solid hard work on the part of certain users. I only mention this because being able to feature an FA a day is quite a feat, and it would be unfortunate for that to just fall away because nobody cares. Might sound harsh, but a cursory glance at the FAN page is rather disturbing. Like this. A 17 KB article from November which has had only one Inq (and no users at all) look at it. Or this, nominated at the start of December, and no one has looked at it. Or this, which has been up since August, has no outstanding objections that I can see, and just sits there. And yet there are no less than 15 Inquisitors who are all to happy to convene in IRC meetings and make autonomous decisions on site-wide issues. So the question has to be asked: What the fuck? Thefourdotelipsis 11:42, January 20, 2011 (UTC)
 * Hmmm...4dot has a point. I'll try to get involved in the process when I've brought an article up to FA status (I'm planning on restoring Shadows of the Empire (soundtrack), but until then, I feel I'm not really capable of effectively objecting. But in their defense, I get on throughout the dat (mainly in the evenings), and most of the Inqs aren't on. And if they are, they are typically just logged in, not really participating in conversations or anything. MasterFred Commerce Guild.svg(Whatever) 17:18, January 20, 2011 (UTC)
 * I was refering toe IRC at the end there. :P MasterFred Commerce Guild.svg(Whatever) 17:19, January 20, 2011 (UTC)
 * I haven't been active on the FAN page for quite a year and a half yet, but from what I've seen, reviewing seems to annually slow down during the winter and pick up heavily in late spring/summer --- presumably because most Wookieepedians are University/college students. I imagine that both writing and reviewing will start to experience a surge around April again, but we may need you to come back and lead the charge once more, 4dot. :) Menkooroo 17:38, January 20, 2011 (UTC)
 * Ok, since 4dot asked for data on a period last year, you might as well have it all. The chart above shows 13 (blue), 26 (red) and 52 (orange) week moving averages for the number of FANs closed per week since the start of 2007. Hover over any point and it will give you the values for all three averages and the week beginning date. You can zoom in on a smaller section using the mini-chart thingy under the main one. Anybody using the new Wikia skin might want to switch this page to MonoBook to see the whole thing. The chart does show a peek in the 13 week average during April to June last year, which I think was down to allowing normal user votes to count (correct me if I'm wrong) and we've gone over 7 a few other times. But the 26 week average only just pops over 7 a couple of times and the 52 week average has never done so. A renewed push to get some approved will not help, since we've never managed to sustain it, and unless we can consistently reach 7 a week then the queue will continue to shrink. Green Tentacle (Talk) 22:12, January 20, 2011 (UTC)
 * Why should we drop down from 1 a day? At current count and rate, we still have nearly 3 years worth of articles, give or take. They just aren't NEW FAs. If we keep adjusting the rate to match production, then the best quality articles will only ever be featured once ever, each, and then stuck on a shelf. I know I don't speak for the FA machines, but I didn't go through the FA process to get a star added to my user infoboxes. I did it because I wanted more people to see the subject. I'm selfish. I personally want my article to be feature as often as possible or for as long as possible. While I've only been toying with new FAs/GAs, knowing that it is the plan to only ever have an FA up once is serious turn off to me. I don't want to spend weeks or months on an article that is only going to see the spotlight once for only 24 hours. The payoff doesn't seem worth the effort to me.
 * I'd rather have three a day, to increase circulation and see the old articles up on the front page more often. Or something like 5 a week, where all five articles are featured all week long, with page tabs like the FAN/GAN/CAN pages, so that each article is showcased for a longer period of time. SinisterSamurai 18:19, January 21, 2011 (UTC)
 * The point of having 1 FA per day was to be able to mimic the likes of Wikipedia, i.e. say to the readers "come back here every single day, and we'll have something new for you." Thefourdotelipsis 23:19, January 21, 2011 (UTC)
 * We aren't Wikipedia, though. I believe there is policy to that effect. Besides, if you haven't seen it, it's new to you. We get new users every day. On top of that, there are many users who aren't here every day. Extending the duration or number of times an article is featured increases the incentive to participate. I think having FA reruns would instill a sense of legacy, rather than a sense of brevity. SinisterSamurai 23:32, January 21, 2011 (UTC)
 * The "We are not Wikipedia" policy is to prevent people from citing Wikipedia rules in place of Wookieepedia ones. It is not to prevent us from aspiring to being able to match the amount of content of Wikipedia. Much like how the POINT policy might prevent someone from disrupting Wookieepedia to prove a point, but it does not prevent them from improving Wookieepedia to prove a point. At any rate, the purpose of FAing something is not to get your work on the main page, it is to ensure that Wookieepedia's coverage of that item is as comprehensive as possible. If you're FAing something purely so your work can be flaunted on the main page then you're kinda not doing it for the right reason. Furthermore, if that truly were the case, no one would have been writing up super-mega-huge articles in the time that we've had single-day features, which simply isn't the case. Anyway, I'd think a better incentive than protracted feature time, in terms of getting people involved in the process, might be the lack of a three month clot on new nominations when they grace the FAN page, which is not only ugly, but it is a waste of everyone's time. If the process were more streamlined, which the creation of the Inquisitorius was supposed to usher in, then people would be more attracted to the idea; they would feel confident that someone would be looking at their work within a matter of days, rather than months. Thefourdotelipsis 05:58, January 22, 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm privy to some information indicating a drive to increase the productivity of current Inqs, and I myself am encouraging the Inq to more actively recruit through training. I hope this will do at least a little to improve the amount of reviewing and nomination closure. It is my plan to seek to rejoin the Inq in the future, however because I am inclined to do things the correct and honest way I intend to be added as an AC first as I rebuild my ability to review articles thoroughly. We as a site cannot stray from our goal of making sure the quality does not take a hit. Graestan ( Talk ) 16:58, January 22, 2011 (UTC)

0AotL7G6dqTBodEtSRFYzaG9jYXNwUERsVVhqS1hFMnc&single=true&gid=7
 * Fourdot brings up some interesting points, and the lack of reviews is something I've noticed too. Just off the top of my head, some alternative methods to deal with the drop in per-week FA counts might be to 1) increase the ranks of the Inquisitorius (which I am gratified to find was done at the last meeting with the addition of to the panel); 2) require INQ members to review a certain number of articles per month; 3) enfranchise regular users more in some way so that their votes are weighted more heavily; 4) reduce the role of the INQ to a supervisory role, their role to maintain rather than name new FAs (thus keeping their roles of arbitrating FARs but making user votes the same weight as INQ votes in new nominations); 5) make INQ membership more open and streamlined so there is a clearly delineated path to membership from normal usership (like after 10 reviews or something, a user is automatically nominated to the INQ); 6) require all users who nominate an FA to also review an FA (or 2 or 3...); etc. etc. In other words, reducing the queue for now may be the best solution to treat the symptom of lower FA production. But to treat the causes of lower FA production, more radical steps probably need to be taken. And, again, these are all suggestions from the top of my head that would need to be debated and fine-tuned or rejected outright, of course. I have nothing but respect for the INQ, but I do think a look at how the body is constituted and how it bottlenecks the FA process may deserve some scrutiny. ~ SavageBob 22:24, January 21, 2011 (UTC)
 * I feel inclined to point out the error in "after 10 reviews or something, a user is automatically nominated to the INQ." The whole point of the Inq is to have a panel of people who really know what they're doing, to ensure that the quality is only the highest. Anyone can slap down a vote or make a few small objections that may or may not get fixed and then slap the vote down. That doesn't really constitute a quality review. This debate has been held over and over ad nauseam on the site practically since the inception of the Inq. Quality needs to be maintained, and since I am currently an Average Joe I would like to weigh in that I have no problem whatsoever with the non-populist view that an Inqvote is worth more than mine at this time. Regular users are not disenfranchised at all, in my opinion. Furthermore, the Inq does have a history of strongly encouraging members to review multiple articles for each one nominated, because it was one of the main hurdles in getting the queue to grow back in '07-'08. And as I state above in response to Fourdot, I have caught wind of a movement to ensure higher productivity from the Inq members, so I am placing my faith in at least partial success from that. Graestan ( Talk ) 16:58, January 22, 2011 (UTC)
 * Good points, Grae, and like I said, these were just top-of-my-head suggestions. Each would need to be debated and tweaked, and it's entirely possible none of them would work. I would like to see our FA throughput grow, though, and not simply be bandaged over with a slower queue. ~ SavageBob 17:39, January 22, 2011 (UTC)
 * This is going to sound insane to some users, particularly those with a more conservative bent regarding how the site works, but what if we include GAs in the queue somehow? I don't really think readers are more inclined to want to open and read a 10K-word article every single day than they would be with smaller articles of more varied topics. What does everyone think of this? And also, a reader survey would not be a bad idea at all regarding the site in general and FAs in particular. Graestan ( Talk ) 16:58, January 22, 2011 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't have a problem with that, provided we limit it to GAs that are GAs because of length barriers rather than research depth. In other words, the article Bimm is a GA, but I know that I could easily expand it to an FA by consulting a few more sources. In this case, I'd say the article should not be on the main page since it's not complete. The article Guudrian, on the other hand, is a GA because there isn't enough canon information to make it an FA. In other words, the front page could be opened up, but it should be opened to complete articles, rather than to any ol' GA. Not sure if this would be workable, though. ~ SavageBob 17:39, January 22, 2011 (UTC)
 * Oh, and I really like the idea of a reader survey. ~ SavageBob 17:44, January 22, 2011 (UTC)
 * At the least we could do something like Wikipedia's current little rating box at the bottom of each page. Graestan ( Talk ) 17:45, January 22, 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm in favor of changing it to one every other day rather than these suggested changes, which seem rather drastic to me (I don't like huge change, now do I think it's best for the site).  Chack Jadson  (Talk) 13:55, January 23, 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree with Grae in that, as a "average joe" user, I do not feel disenfranchised at this time. Since the approval of the new Inq-vote to User-vote ratio, I feel like the voting process is much more open and doesn't need anymore alteration. I do, however, like SavageBob's second and sixth option&mdash;requiring Inqs to review a certain number of articles a month and requiring nominators to review a certain number of articles per every nomination. I am a relatively frequent nominator and admittedly a relatively infrequent reviewer, but if I were required to review two articles every time I wanted to nominate one, I wouldn't have any arguments. I'm not certain how either of these would be enforced, but they are promising ideas. As for adding GAs to the queue, I'm more or less on the fence, for the simple reasons pointed out by Bob and Chack&mdash;not all GAs are of high enough quality to be featured on the main page, and it seems a bit drastic. A featured article is named as such because it is featured on the main page, whereas good articles are not. But again, I could be swayed&mdash;I'm on the fence with this one. Darth Trayus ( Trayus Academy ) 22:07, January 24, 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't feel disenfranchised either. I feel the voting system is fine as-is. I also am in favor of requiring a quota of noms for Inqs, and also for those who nominate. MasterFred Commerce Guild.svg(Whatever) 22:16, January 24, 2011 (UTC)
 * The idea of formally or informally requiring Inqs to review a given number of articles per personal nomination is an excellent idea, and something I know I for one have practiced myself for a long time just out of sheer courtesy. But mandating any kind of review quota for Inqs, monthly or what have you, just doesn't work, because the only way you can enforce that is by kicking people out of the Inq for not reviewing. And fewer manpower on the Inq roster is the complete antithesis of what we need. Believe me, we discuss this at almost every single Inqmoot we have, and we come to that same conclusion every time. This is a volunteer organization at its core, and you can't force people to volunteer. You can only hope to entice more and more people to get involved, which I hope we can find new and improved ways of doing. Toprawa and Ralltiir 22:24, January 24, 2011 (UTC)
 * Ah, I see your point on the monthly quota. Makes sense. MasterFred Commerce Guild.svg(Whatever) 22:28, January 24, 2011 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't mind having a review requirement for Inqs and article nominators; that seems perfectly reasonable to me. As for adding GAs to the queue&mdash;I'm not really sure either way yet; although I strongly disagree with the argument that we shoudn't do so because GAs are of a lower quality. My reviewing on the GAN is just as strict as my reviewing on the FAN. In fact, I feel that some FAs would be more likely to be at a slightly lower quality than GAs, because as larger articles it's easier for the occasional mistake to slip through the reviewing process. Anyway, that's just my two cents. But in the meantime (unless we add GAs to the queue or FA nominations suddenly start pouring through) changing the queue to the every-other day thing is just following our current policy established via CT. Jonjedigrandmaster  ( Talk ) 22:22, January 24, 2011 (UTC)
 * GT Comment III: Return of the Charts! I'd just like to dispel the idea that the current problem with the queue is the result of the Inqs not keeping up with the workload. The above chart shows the number of FANs nominated per week. It clearly shows that we haven't consistently hit seven nominates a week since early 2009. Regardless of how hard the Inquisitors do or do not work, we can't add more to the queue than we're writing. Green Tentacle (Talk) 22:45, January 24, 2011 (UTC)
 * I want to throw my support behind a few of the ideas that have been floated here. I definitely like Graestan's idea of adding GA's into the queue --- it's a great idea, but there would be a bunch of kinks to work out. Would it be permanent, or only when the FA queue is hurting? Would there me multiple GA's showcased per day? Where would we start? These obviously aren't insurmountable hurdles and could be knocked out in an SH thread or a CT. I really like it as an idea.

I'm also a fan of the idea of instituting a reviewing requirement for each article that one personally nominates --- for everyone, not just for Inquisitors. I'd especially like it if it was worded in such a way so as to strongly recommend that one directs their reviewing efforts toward an article that's currently in the top ten. That's a problem that seems to come up every year, and was one of the most hotly debated items when we were having this conversation nearly a year ago --- new articles, often written by other inquisitors, were being snowballed in days while six-month-old articles, often written by non-inqs, were sitting nearly unreviewed. That was a big problem last year, and I thought we were over it, but, well, this and this are a little disappointing. I'm not criticizing anyone, but rather just echoing 4Dot's examples which showed that the top-ten articles on the FAN page are often hurting, and pointing out that snowballing new articles written by other Inqs isn't a good solution (not trying to guess at intent here, just pointing out that it looks bad from a PR standpoint, ya know?).

I also want to echo something that SinSam pointed out --- why can't we just keep the FA queue as is, and when it runs out, go back to featuring old FA's for a while until there's a sufficiently long new FA queue? Nothing wrong with featuring something on the main page again when it was last there two or three years ago, is there? Menkooroo 00:34, January 25, 2011 (UTC)
 * The "problem" you refer to, Menkooroo, has nothing to do with Inqs specifically reading nominations from fellow Inqs and in turn ignoring non-Inq nominations. It has everything to do with the quality of writing in the nomination. The reason I jump on reviewing articles written by CC7567, to respond to your linked-to examples, is because I have supreme confidence in knowing that CC's articles are of the utmost quality compared to anyone who writes articles on this wiki. He could write the book on How To Write and Format Featured Articles, and I would endorse it 100%. I enjoy reading his articles, because I know for a fact they're of superior quality to many others, and I reward people whose articles are of better quality by reviewing their work first. I don't give a crap how that looks "from a PR standpoint." The fact that he's an Inq in no way influences my decision to read his noms. It's only that his writing and reviewing quality is so superior that he happens to be an Inq. When articles "in the top ten," as you refer to it, sit on the page for months and months at a time, it's because they're of severely lacking quality, or are otherwise 20 pages long and so they get skipped over. That's not a demerit intended for any one user, it's just stating a fact. When objections from one nomination take up 50% of the entire FAN page, as these articles "in the top ten" frequently do, people tend to ignore them because they know they're probably not written very well and are going to take a lot of work to fix. Kudos to those who do take the time to review these problematic articles, but not everyone has the time or energy to constantly devote themselves to that. It's the consistently poor quality of some of these "six-month-old top ten" articles that I find disappointing, and that's why they sit on the page for eternity. If there's a "problem" in this area, that's it. Don't point your finger in the wrong direction, ya know? Toprawa and Ralltiir 01:23, January 25, 2011 (UTC)
 * I actually really like the idea of re-featuring old FAs. If it still retains its status and hasn't been on the main page in over two years, then I can't see any issue with showcasing it again. In addition, I think that restored featured articles that have either undergone significant revisions to the point that it contains entirely new content, or that haven't been featured in over two years, should be eligible for main page showcasing once more. The featuring of restored articles obviously won't solve any problems, but it definitely won't hurt the queue. But I'm 100% behind re-featuring old FAs. Darth Trayus ( Trayus Academy ) 01:07, January 25, 2011 (UTC)
 * Just wanna restate that I wasn't pointing my finger at anyone, or guessing at anyone's intentions, but just pointing out what looks bad to the rest of the community. The Inqs seem to come under attack every now and then, and I was trying to be helpful by showing that something which they came under attack for about a year ago is still happening and probably doesn't look very good to the public. Not trying to attack anyone or start an argument. I would admittedly love to see the efforts of Inqs and non-Inqs alike be directed at articles closer to the top of the FAN page, but, again, I'm not trying to criticize others for directing their efforts elsewhere. Cheers. Menkooroo 01:57, January 25, 2011 (UTC)
 * Just to add a note to what Menk was saying, nobody is pointing any fingers, and this thread is not designed to say "well, so-and-so isn't doing things the right way, so this is all their fault." If I'm not mistaken, I think what he's getting at&mdash;and its a sentiment I agree with&mdash;is that these "problematic articles" deserve more attention than perfect articles because they are problematic, ya know? We all know that CC's one of the best writers on the site, so we all know that his articles are going to get on the queue sooner or later. I don't know, I just feel like the FAN page isn't about "rewarding" good writers or punishing inexperienced writers. The point of a review is to see if an article is in the ballpark of becoming an FA, and if it's around there, then it's the reviewers job to make objections that will ultimately bring it up to FA standards, and if they are so far away from being an FA, like the ones in the "top ten" are, according to some, then they should be removed from the FAN page instead of ignored. Somebody's clearly gonna see this as an attack and feel the need to defend themselves, but again, I want to clarify that these are simply statements based on my point of view&mdash;I'm not saying anyone's "wrong" in any way. Darth Trayus ( Trayus Academy ) 06:24, January 25, 2011 (UTC)
 * Unless my articles are just really, really bad, I have to say the subject of an article makes a difference in how fast they get reviewed, too. Short character articles get reviewed faster than species articles do. I suspect it might also help to personally ask people to review articles, provided they won't consider it bothersome. I tend to just leave things to chance as to who reviews me, which seems to make my noms last longer on the page. At any rate, I support at least a suggestion that every article nomination should be followed by an article review or somesuch. I also have no problem with rerunning older FAs. ~ SavageBob 02:00, January 25, 2011 (UTC)
 * Zsinj is a great example, I think, of an old FA that deserves another main-page feature. It's been nearly five years since it was last showcased, and Culator has done a lot of work on it since then besides. Menkooroo 02:14, January 25, 2011 (UTC)
 * I love the idea of recycled FANS. hell, mix'em up randomly among the new ones. You have to take into account, as GT said, that volume is down. This is the first time in years that I've seen the FAN under 40. I also echo Toprawa wholeheartedly. About CC, and a handful of others. —Tommy 9281 02:33, January 25, 2011 (UTC)
 * I think that the rerunning of old FAs is a great, simple way to start a fix to the issue. Before we start having a serious discussion regarding putting GAs on the front page, I think the specifics should be nailed down in some sort of INQ-AC meeting. That way it could be presented to the site with all of the major questions answered. That being said, I'm still not opposed to the idea, just iffy. Darth Trayus ( Trayus Academy ) 06:24, January 25, 2011 (UTC)
 * I support the re-featuring of old FAs as well as the idea of requiring a certain number of reviews for each nomination. As an example for the second point, Wikipedia recently implemented a similar rule on their "Did you know?" nomination page. That resulted in a significant reduction in the nomination backlog, so much so that they had to increase the normal number of hooks on the main page at a time from six to eight to handle the increase in the number of approved hooks, so I think a similar rule would work here as well. I should note that Wikipedia, in implementing their rule, exempted users new to the process, and we might want to do something similar if we adopt this rule to avoid intimidating the newbies; they really can't review properly unless they actually understand the process anyway.  Master Jonathan New Jedi Order.svg ( Jedi Council Chambers ) 06:29, January 25, 2011 (UTC)
 * MJ, do you happen to know at what point the new contributors are no longer considered exempt from the "must review to nominate" rule? Out of curiosity. Darth Trayus ( Trayus Academy ) 08:52, January 25, 2011 (UTC)
 * You can read the Wikipedia version here. The rule there is that users with fewer than five previous DYK credits do not have to review. I would suggest a lower number here; perhaps allow the user's first FA nomination without a review, then require one review on the second nomination, two reviews on the third, and three reviews on all subsequent nominations. This would help phase users into reviewing without suddenly hitting them with a requirement to review three nominations. Multiple reviews per nomination would be necessary IMO because each individual nomination requires at least five separate reviews, and even that is only of all of the reviewers are Inqs.  Master Jonathan New Jedi Order.svg ( Jedi Council Chambers ) 18:05, January 25, 2011 (UTC)
 * I really like that idea. Specifically, that exact idea --- no reviews necessary for your first nom, one for your second, two for your third, three for infinity. With some sort of disclaimer clarifying that you're welcome and encouraged to review other noms at any time, but that it isn't formally required until you produce your second nom. That is, if we're making this a formal requirement --- is that the general feeling here? That this should be a formal requirement rather than an informal recommendation? Menkooroo 23:19, January 25, 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't know if it's such a good idea. As GT's second graph shows, even with improved reviewing, there simply aren't enough nominations to maintain the seven-a-week schedule, and I think forcing reviews on nominators will decrease nominations further (even if all nominators are willing, which is unlikely, they're going to have to devote some of their time to reading FA nominations rather than writing them). jSarek 01:24, January 26, 2011 (UTC)
 * I can only speak for myself, but I don't think that a 1:1 or 2:1 ratio for nominations to reviews reviews to nominations would slow me down too much. Three may be asking a bit much, and may be just enough to discourage certain nominators from pumping out as many articles as they do. But I will again state that the clearest, least complicated or controversial idea put forth thus far has been the rerunning of old FAs. That can certainly keep us at a seven-a-week pace. I propose that be enacted as an emergency measure, and in the interim we can discuss a review requirement and the possibility of adding GAs.  Darth Trayus ( Trayus Academy ) 01:32, January 26, 2011 (UTC)
 * Yeah, a 2:1 ratio wouldn't be a bad idea. Re-featuring old FA's seems to be a good solution to the queue problem, but having a formal or informal "review two for every one you nominate" rule would help close FANs faster, too. Considering how many people already review that frequently or more, I don't think it would slow down writing. Menkooroo 01:50, January 26, 2011 (UTC)
 * To respond to jSarek, I only know my system, and I tend to restrict myself to three noms at a time because I know there are just so many reviewers (in the current system) willing to look at species articles, and I want to avoid overwhelming them (or the page). I have about seven articles in the hopper that are mostly ready to be nominated, and about three of Skippy Farlstendoiro's that he's given me the green light to nominate since he's departed, but I'm waiting till one of my current noms clears first. Just a note that the lack of noms is not necessarily because of lack of articles ready to be nominated. ~ SavageBob 03:28, January 26, 2011 (UTC)

Re-Feature
I'm glad to see that a few additional users are showing support (from indifferent to enthusiastic) for maintaining the FA Queue rate by putting older FAs back into the mix. I know that the details would have to be discussed and hammered out before something like that could be taken to the Consensus Track. Hopefully I'm not overstepping any bounds by adding a section to specifically discuss the possibility. SinisterSamurai 23:44, January 26, 2011 (UTC)
 * If Re-Features were to be implemented, would we simply re-run the oldies in the order they were originally FA'd? SinisterSamurai 23:44, January 26, 2011 (UTC)
 * For those who code savvy/Front-Page savvy, how difficult would it be to re-incorporate older Featured Articles back into the queue? I know that currently, the Queue is set up ahead of time with hard-coded dates. It doesn't seem feasible to splice old FAs into the current queue (you'd have to move several at a time), although they could simply be added at the end of the current Queue. SinisterSamurai 23:44, January 26, 2011 (UTC)
 * Could a separate queue be created that runs on different days: for example, New FA Queue Friday - Tuesday, Older FA Queue Wednesday and Thursday? SinisterSamurai 23:44, January 26, 2011 (UTC)
 * Would it be feasible to create a script that automatically pulled the FA hooks from ordered list (without hard-coded dates)? If we had that, it'd be easier to adjust the FA rate without moving everything. It'd also be easier to halt the FA Queue to squeeze in special community events like the previous Moff Week or Gotal Week. SinisterSamurai 23:44, January 26, 2011 (UTC)

Nom/Review credits
The other thing that seems to be frequently discussed is requiring FA Nominators to have a certain number of review credits based on their nomination count. The general idea seems to require a nominator to have one review credit for every nom after that user's first nom.
 * If this were to be implemented, would these review credits be retroactive? If someone reviews three articles before this goes live, would that person have three review credits, or would they be starting from zero? SinisterSamurai 23:44, January 26, 2011 (UTC)
 * If this were to be implemented, would nom requirements be retroactive? If someone has submitted four FAs before this goes live, would they have to review four articles before their fifth could be nominated? Or would they be starting from zero? SinisterSamurai 23:44, January 26, 2011 (UTC)
 * This really feels like a ton of bureaucracy where "hey, go review some damn nominations" would work just as well. Graestan ( Talk ) 23:49, January 26, 2011 (UTC)
 * I hope you guys realize that there's a huge difference between people who review and people who just slap down votes and say they reviewed an article. If you force people to review in order to get involved in article nominating, you're going to have more new people just mindlessly voting on things to pass a petty and virtually unenforceable quota than you are people who actually give two craps about reviewing things for the sake of overall quality. And then our Featured articles are going to suffer more than they otherwise would as a result. I'm still not convinced this is such a fabulous idea. Toprawa and Ralltiir 23:52, January 26, 2011 (UTC)
 * And before someone tries to come up with some ridiculous set of guidelines for determining when someone is really reviewing an article, let me just say that, again, this is something we've discussed more than a few times over the years at Inqmoots, when the issue of Inqs not really reviewing and just placing token votes down has come to fore. You can't formally presume to decide when someone is really reviewing and when they're not, though it's usually pretty obvious. Toprawa and Ralltiir 23:58, January 26, 2011 (UTC)