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)

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)

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)

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)

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.

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)

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)