Forum:CT Archive/FA reform proposal

It has become evident that something needs to be done with the current FA system. Certain individuals continue to nominate articles that technically fulfill the FA requirements, but are believed by a considerable fraction of users not to be the best Wookieepedia has to offer - which is what FAs are supposed to be.

Also, the existing system was not designed with such level of activity in mind. We risk overflowing the weekly queue.

This is a crisis. And when a crisis occurs, we must act swiftly.

On IRC, has made a suggestion to separate two processes: nominating an article for featured status and nominating a featured article to be highlighted on the main page. He says he has diagrams.

Other possible proposals: requiring GA status prior to nominating an FA, or shortening the rotation cycle. proposes a half-weekly cycle, or 3.5 days per article.

Let the discussion begin. - Sikon 12:22, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
 * You know, I wondered how FAs could jump from no status to FA. Having all FAs have to go through GA seems like it's reasonable and sensible. Jorrel [[Image:Wiki-shrinkable.png|20px]] Fraajic 12:25, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Right there. Darth Maddolis 12:26, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I heartily endorse this event or product. Krusty the Clown (Talk) 12:30, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Ahem. To me, it seems that the problems people have with the current FA system boil down to: 1) "Silly" articles get featured on the main page, and 2) some of the articles are too short. In light of this, I propose the following: Split the FA system in two; one page for nominating articles for Featured status, and one for nominating Featured articles to appear on the main page. Additionally, instate a rule that makes sure no FAs can be under 1000 words, and a rule that requires articles to be GAs prior to being nominated for FA. -- http://images.wikia.com/starwars/images/e/e5/ATATatarismall.png 12:44, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I think Imp here has it nailed here. This is how it should be. - JMAS 12:48, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
 * The only issue I sense with specializing two FAs is that the FA process might slow to a trickle and maybe even stop. I know we have a queue already that is 3 months long, but after that, then what? Jorrel [[Image:Wiki-shrinkable.png|20px]] Fraajic 12:52, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I suspect it won't be an issue, Jorrel. We want LOTS of Good Articles, and we already have many (and will get more). I also support Imp's notion of a separate Main Page Article concept, though I think the prerequisites would need to be voted on (IMO they shouldn't be much stricter than what we've been doing, or else it'd seem that we're excluding certain topics *cough*Burl*ahem*). So, to sum up, I'm in favor of GA -> FA -> MPA. Let's make a cheer out of it! "GA, FA, MPA!"  Gonk  ( Gonk! ) 12:59, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Alright, explained, it makes sense. I wasn't criticizing the plan, just bringing it up for any concerned users. Maybe even Imp's diagrams would aid the thought process :-P Jorrel [[Image:Wiki-shrinkable.png|20px]] Fraajic 13:02, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
 * How about, it has to maintain GA status for a 2 weeks, then it can be nominated for FA status, and after maintaining FA status for another 2 weeks, then it can be queued for MPFA (Main Page Featured Article) status. - JMAS 13:04, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
 * It's a good idea, JMAS, but if the articles are silly to begin with, and make it to FA, they'll stay there for two weeks anyway. I like Imp's idea. Darth Maddolis 13:43, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Hmm. I'm split over this proposal. I don't like the idea of splitting the FA page, and so I disagree with that. On the other hand, I like the idea of a 1000 word limit and making FAs go through GA first. Atarumaster88  [[Image:Jedi_Order.jpg|20px]] ( Audience Chamber ) 15:39, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Silly is a point of view, Darth Maddolis. Some would say all that is Star Wars is silly.  Gonk  ( Gonk! ) 16:04, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Oppose splitting the FA page, but Support length limit for FA noms and having them go through GA status first. Saying that some article are worthy to be put on the front page and others aren't kind of defeats the purpose of FA, does it not? They are called "FEATURED" articles, not "Some are featured, while the rest are stuffed in a dark corner" articles.  StarNeptune Talk to me! 17:27, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Support putting them through GA first, Strong Oppose 3.5 days and two kinds of FAs. I think it's pretty good as is. Just for frame of reference, can someone give me a previous FA that was less than 1000 words? Chack Jadson 17:32, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
 * AFAIK, there aren't any. A good thing, if you ask me. Some have been close, but not under. Atarumaster88  [[Image:Jedi_Order.jpg|20px]] ( Audience Chamber ) 17:33, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Support length limit and GA review, so very opposed to the separate main page idea. Why does it matter if somebody thinks an article is "silly"? - Lord Hydronium 18:34, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Support minimum length limit and Support GA to FA flow. -Fnlayson 18:59, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm not proposing two sorts of FAs&hellip; think of it more like QOTD&mdash;it's just a place to nominate your favorite featured articles for showcasing on the main page. -- http://images.wikia.com/starwars/images/e/e5/ATATatarismall.png 19:02, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Oppose splitting the FA page is going to result in the community deciding what is "cool enough" so to speak, to be put on the front page. FA should not be like QotD, and hopefully it won't become that way. Terrible idea I believe. Per StarNeptune. Oppose changing the GA into a gateway for FA. That's not what it was created to be, and will serve to cement the idea that not everything can be an GA, which I strongly disagree with. Support a length limit for FA. I want FAs to be at least 1000 words, at least then we can be sure that they will represent articles that actually have some information, instead of basically one or two facts stated multiple ways.
 * To answer Chack's question, sans image, quotes, header, and source and ref characters, there are a few articles that have been under 1000 words, but if we do institute that policy, we'll probably have to decide what constitutes part of the word count. Cull Tremayne 21:10, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Oppose to everything, on second thought. I'm just not a fan, and I think we're running alright at the moment. And I don't really think that some of the FA's under 1000 words are unsuitable in the traditional sense. Granted, I wrote most of them, but I'm not sure that length = quality. I don't like the set limit, I think we should just use good common sense with the length limit. .  .  .  .  21:59, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Formal Vote
There are a number of issues here relevant to FA.

Freeze passage of all FAs until this thread is over
Support
 * To make sure that everything is somewhat standardized, should we freeze promotion of FA noms until this thread ends? We have a queue of articles until September. Any old articles will be reviewed retroactively by the Inquisitorius to make sure they pass muster, that's why it was formed.
 * 1) Comedy maniac option. -- http://images.wikia.com/starwars/images/e/e5/ATATatarismall.png 22:36, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Oppose
 * 1) No. God. .  .  .  .  22:28, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
 * 2) Dumb. In the most literal sense. Cull Tremayne 22:36, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
 * 3) - Solus (Bird of Prey)  22:50, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
 * 4) Lord Hydronium 23:06, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
 * 5) No.  The future always in motion, it is.  Use criteria when article started FA review. -Fnlayson 00:38, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Comments

Word Limit
Support Oppose Comments
 * Have a word limit of at least one thousand words of prose (not including captions, quotes, or headers, etc.) for Featured Article noms
 * 1) Atarumaster88  [[Image:Jedi_Order.jpg|20px]] ( Audience Chamber ) 22:28, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
 * 2) http://images.wikia.com/starwars/images/e/e5/ATATatarismall.png 22:29, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
 * 3) Cull Tremayne 22:36, 5 April 2007 (UTC) -- Will fix the problem (we had a problem?) Yes we had a problem. (you talk to yourself?) Who is this again?
 * 4) Especially since my proposed WP:CA allows short articles to be recognized. 22:38, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
 * 5) Green Tentacle (Talk) 22:40, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
 * 6) - Solus (Bird of Prey)  22:49, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
 * 7) Lord Hydronium 23:06, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
 * 8) Also exclude references.-LtNOWIS 23:40, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
 * 9) Actually, Burl's only 100 short. Nice. .  .  .  .  00:41, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) 719 is a much better number.  .  .  .  .  22:37, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
 * A word limit of what? .  .  .  .  22:29, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Include intro
Support
 * Should the intro be included in the word count?
 * 1) Atarumaster88  [[Image:Jedi_Order.jpg|20px]] ( Audience Chamber ) 22:28, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
 * 2) http://images.wikia.com/starwars/images/e/e5/ATATatarismall.png 22:29, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
 * 3) Why the hell not? .  .  .  .  22:30, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
 * 4) Eh. I could probably be convinced otherwise. Cull Tremayne 22:36, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
 * 22:38, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) Per Cull. Green Tentacle (Talk) 22:41, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
 * 2) - Solus (Bird of Prey)  22:49, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
 * 3) Lord Hydronium 23:06, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
 * 4) LtNOWIS 23:40, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
 * 5) Sure. Fnlayson 00:39, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Oppose

Comments

Include Behind the scenes
Support
 * Should Behind the scenes information be included in the word count?
 * 1) If it's prose, yes, because it's an even more legitimate part of the article than the intro. If it's a list, no way. .  .  .  .  22:31, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
 * 2) With 4dot's prerequisite. Cull Tremayne 22:36, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
 * 3) Per 4dot. Green Tentacle (Talk) 22:42, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
 * 4) - Solus (Bird of Prey)  22:49, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
 * 5) Per 4dot. - Lord Hydronium 23:06, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
 * 6) -LtNOWIS 23:40, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Oppose
 * 1) Atarumaster88  [[Image:Jedi_Order.jpg|20px]] ( Audience Chamber ) 22:28, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
 * No, a bunch of marginal triva could get an article a ways torward the 1000 words. -Fnlayson 00:42, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Comments
 * Neutral for now. 22:38, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

GA prequisite for FA
Support
 * Should all Featured Articles be required to achieve GA status first? Note that this won't apply retroactively: That'd be silly.
 * 1) Yes 22:46, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Oppose Comments
 * 1) Good God no. .  .  .  .  22:31, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
 * 2) I just don't get it. Cull Tremayne 22:36, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
 * 3) - Solus (Bird of Prey)  22:49, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
 * 4) Atarumaster88  [[Image:Jedi_Order.jpg|20px]] ( Audience Chamber ) 23:11, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Maybe not this, but I'd like GA to be brought more into the process to get people interested in it. I'm open to ideas. Green Tentacle (Talk) 22:44, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
 * GA provides a stepping stone to get articles up to par, then FA just makes them awesome (hopefully). Plus, WP:CA (if it goes through) would provide a separate system for short articles formerly nominated for GA status, and make this more suitable for an FA prerequisite. 22:46, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I said support above, but I'm less sure about this now. On the one hand, it does help weed out the poor FA noms early and brings attention to GA. On the other hand, it's another layer to go through, which makes FA nominating longer and more difficult. - Lord Hydronium 23:06, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Oppose because the Inquisitorius keeps poor FA noms weeded out anyway.

Split the FA page
Split the page
 * Per Imperialles, we would split the FA page into noms for main page appearance and noms for Featured Article.

Keep it the way it is
 * 1) Atarumaster88  [[Image:Jedi_Order.jpg|20px]] ( Audience Chamber ) 22:28, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
 * 2) I am no longer a fan. .  .  .  .  22:31, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
 * 3) Never a fan. Cull Tremayne 22:36, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
 * 4) For now 22:46, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
 * 5) - Solus (Bird of Prey)  22:49, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
 * 6) Nein. - Lord Hydronium 23:06, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Comments