Forum:CT Archive/Increase CAN votes required

Per the inconclusive results in the preceding SH discussion (which is a lot more detailed), I've decided to turn this into a CT and will just sum up the benefits from the application of these rule changes, which I propose. My proposition is a change in the CAN 'How to vote' section, increasing the number of votes required for an article to be successfully awarded Comprehensive status:


 * (...)If four members of the EduCorps support a nomination in that window [0 to 48 hours post-nomination], and there are no outstanding objections, the article can be considered a "Comprehensive article" and be tagged with the template 48 hours after the initial nomination. The talk page will also be tagged with the  template. When the 48 hours are up, any user's votes will contribute towards the total. If two EduCorps member has voted for an article after a week, three regular votes will be required. After the 48 hour period, an article can still also pass with just three EduCorps votes.

And the following list with the reasons to support my thesis:


 * In the CA page it says: "A Comprehensive article is an article that adheres to quality standards, but cannot reach GA status due to its limited content." and as such its nominations should receive, at least, a similar treatment as do both FANs and GANs, therefore, only two votes required should not be enough to grant the article a CA status, regardless of the reviewers having experience or not.
 * For similar reasons, both GANs and FANs require a considerable amount of votes to pass, whilst CANs have very low requirements in terms of voting to pass yet, if I'm not mistaken, initially the whole point of the CANs were (as quoted above) to adhere to quality.
 * I've seen several users which refuse to review in the CANs because some of the nominations that passed had low levels of quality, something that can be corrected with a larger amount of reviewers and respective votes.
 * While any article is free to receive an unlimited amount of reviewers most people will ignore the article at hand if it already meets the required votes to pass, so for this reason, most CANs pass with just two or three votes.
 * This proposition is not intended to criticize ECs or to be more harsh on less-experienced nominators. It serves only to enhance/improve the quality of articles that are to receive CA status.
 * What I propose will hardly stall the CANs list, but even...even if it does, unlike the GANs board, there is no nominations' limit per author, and the nominations can keep coming while the review of preceding noms takes place.

Anyway, as a frequent CANs reviewer and nominator, this is where my opinion stands. My part is done, your call now. Winterz (talk) 19:39, February 26, 2013 (UTC)

Support

 * 1) Winterz (talk) 19:39, February 26, 2013 (UTC)