Forum:Proposed Change in Good Article Voting Process

After some consideration, I believe we should change the way that Good Articles are voted upon. As of right now, there is only one week for a nomination and all nominations are cleared on Saturdays at 11:59pm Eastern Standard Time. Articles with the highest votes are then made Good Article whereas the others that did not become Good Articles are forced to be renominated. Some articles are renominated over and over again until they become Good Articles, such as Troyb’s New Confederacy of Independent Systems or Darth tom’s Sela Kerroro. This, in my opinion and the opinion of some others, is not the right way of doing it anymore.

The way we do it now makes Good Article nominations into some sort of an award or a prize. However, they are not awards and they are not prizes. They are meant to give distinction to articles that deserve them. To do that, there is no need for a competition and, in fact, a competition goes against the idea of distinction. Therefore, I feel that we need to change the way we vote.

Rather than being removed at the end of the week, all nominations will remain on the nominations page until they receive a certain number of votes. These votes will show that enough users believe that the article is up to Good Article standards. Therefore, I have decided on a number that I believe is suitable and I would like you to decide on it. An article will need SEVEN votes from regular users to be a Good Article. Along with that, they will also need THREE votes from High Priests. This requires the High Priests to actually review the articles and, therefore, do the jobs they were selected to do.

I believe that this will lead to articles of much higher quality becoming Good Articles, as there will be far more time to adequately and thoroughly review them rather than being pressured to review them within a seven day period or less. Not only that, but it will mean that more users will get involved with Good Article voting and, as said before, this will give High Priests an actual purpose because the users will need their votes.

This does not, however, take away from user voting because the amount of votes needed from regular users are over twice as many needed by the High Priests. Also, while the High Priests can essentially go against the users by voting against an article even when the users vote for it, the users can do the same. If three or more High Priests say that they believe an article is up to standards, the users can go against this by not having seven of them vote. This makes this a fairly equal and balanced relationship, giving everyone an equal say.

Please review what I said and vote on this. Voting for this proposal will end on Wednesday, May 28th at 11:59 Eastern Standard Time, though it can be extended if need be. - President Brandon Rhea  (Pressroom) (Record) 03:40, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Current standings

 * Support (1)
 * Neutral (0)
 * Oppose (0)

Support

 * 1) As the one who proposed this. - President Brandon Rhea  [[Image:Presidentialseal.gif|27px]] (Pressroom) (Record) 03:40, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Discussion
Please place any discussion comments you have in this section. - President Brandon Rhea  (Pressroom) (Record) 03:40, 22 May 2008 (UTC)