Forum:Good Article Voting

I've been noticing that no matter what the guidelines say for voting for GAs, no one is really reading one very important part. What very important part is this?

"Whether you support or object, please supply concrete reasons for doing so and how it can be improved. If you do not provide a valid reason for your support or opposition, such votes will be removed."

- How To Vote

The High Priests, and this includes me, have been lax in enforcing this rule. Generally, there are not that many oppose votes for GAs, which is generally good, and those oppose votes that are posted are generally either detailed or they cite the HP reviews. The support votes, however, are not detailed. Too many of the support votes, speciffically this round, are nothing more than "Great article!", "Awesome article.", "Good article.", etc. Well, more should be said! Another support vote says "Should win." WHY should it win? Another says "Deserves to be a GA". WHY does it deserve to be a GA. Others are simply signatures. Now, there is nothing wrong with saying "per above" if there is a detailed explination, but in the future if you are one of the first to support or oppose you MUST supply a concrete reason for doing so, not simply "ZOMG COOL!" like we've been getting recently. I encourage my fellow High Priests to remove any and all support/oppose votes that do not supply concrete reasonings. - Brandon Rhea 02:11, 26 June 2007 (UTC)