Forum:Relieving the GAN

Far too many nominations right now on the good article nominations. Wouldn't be a problem if authors actually attended to objections instead of allowing their GANs to rot away and waste time and space, but out of the thirteen, two of them have outstanding nominations making the page huge and for nothing, considering their authors have done nothing to enhance the articles. A few of the nominations are close to being approved but lack some votes from the High Priests, therefore telling me some High Priests aren't doing what they should be doing. Because of the influx of GANs, I don't think many people even bother with it considering there is so much crud to get through first.

I propose we do something to make the flow of GAN flow more steadily and made the nominations page neat and readable. (the following are split into the two different proposals that are part of one larger proposal)

Proposal A – First, we put a limit (again) on number of GANs at one time. My proposed limit right off the bat is 5, considering making it a fair amount for the HPs to review within a period of time.

Proposal B – We redo the reviewing process. What I mean is simple: All objections, comments, discussion, questions, and such about a specific GAN can go on their HP namespace page. So, if someone was to be reviewing Travot Terrin, all objections, comments, etc. would be placed on the HP:Travot Terrin page. There, the authors would be led to take care of their article and do all the reviewing and stuff there. That way, the page is already ready to archive when objections are satisfied (or not, whatever the case may be). Meanwhile, on the actual GAN page, only the voting would take place, meaning only those in support of the article would vote there. So, the format would be as follows.

Article - Reviews and discussion

(tally number, such as 0/+1 etc.)


 * 1) Signed votes in SUPPORT only. ~
 * 2) Signed votes. ~
 * 3) Signed votes. ~

Of course, the 10 users (4 of those at least being HPs) votes required would still remain in tact.

This isn't a vote yet, please discuss first. Thanks. --Victor talk 02:05, 25 August 2008 (UTC)