Forum:CT:FW quality rule change

Forums > Consensus track archive > CT:FW quality rule change

The following was a proposal to expand requirements for Featured Works.. The result of the discussion was the requirements were approved. This forum is an archive. Should you wish to add your opinion on the matter, please do so on the forum's talk page.

---

It's come to our attention that the quality standards for featured works are a bit nebulous. Here's what it says right now:

3…Be of sufficient quality to merit featured work status and display on the Main Page. That said, the Archivists have various powers related to judgment calls on nominations as described above. They are not required to read the entire work, but that is recommended, nor are they required to read every nomination word-for-word for minor grammar and spelling errors. That is the responsibility of the author and/or any betareaders to handle.

It was brought up by Wylind awhile ago that the Archivists basically have a free reign in evaluating FWNs. He said he'd get to work on changing that, but falling in love and getting married is quite the distraction. That said, now that the FW system has been in place for some time, I feel that would be beneficial to provide some guidelines as far as what the Archivists are looking for in a Featured Work's quality.

Currently, the system tells you to produce quality but gives no benchmarks on a work's quality before the Archivists review it. This was originally intended to not place limitations on a subjective evaluation, but now seems to be more of a hindrance. Another one of my esteemed colleagues, Goodwood and I put our heads together and we've come up with this addendum to rule 3 outlined above.

What are we looking for in a Featured Work? Your work needs to be polished. This means that the spelling and grammar should not be active impediments to the reader. Your work needs to have adequate description. That could include both the physical setting as well as the thoughts of your characters. Your work needs to be paced appropriately. If it goes too fast, the reader is lost and is forced to fill in too many blanks without knowing or appreciating what's happening. If it is too slow, then the work becomes difficult or boring to read. Your work should be detailed properly that the reader understands what is occurring in the story, but without slowing it down with too many flowery sentences. Your work should be original. The storyline should be yours. It might be influenced by other works, but should have a distinct element of originality. Your work should have believable dialogue, meaning that if your story has dialogue, that it should be natural and flowing. Your work should have sufficient development of characters and plotlines. This will allow the reader to understand the story better, and characters should be developed sufficiently as befitting their role in the story. Your work should have necessary decency as required by the content policy. Works or content solely based on shock value is not fitting of Featured Work status Your work should not impede the suspension of disbelief. Fanon it might be, but at some point, the work becomes too impossible for even dedicated Star Wars fans to understand or appreciate. There is ample leeway with this, as this guideline is mainly intended as a provision against Mary Sues. Your work should be intended as a story. It should primarily be for entertainment and not a vehicle for commentary, criticism, or satire on any person, organization, or concept, fictional or otherwise. Such things are acceptable in moderation only. Your work must have a purpose-driven plot. Your story should go somewhere and it should chronicle something important within whatever world or galaxy it takes place. Your work should follow the Manual of Style, as applicable. The actual story should be on a subpage and the main article laid out as dictated by the SWF rules on articles of that type. This includes a behind the scenes section appropriately detailed for the work's length and complexity. And the disclaimer: These are not hard and fast requirements but rather criteria. And, as with any criteria for judging literary works, they are, by nature, subjective and will be treated as such by Archivists.

We would also like to change something on Rule 4, which discusses the excerpt, and stipulate that the excerpt must be between 150 and 300 words to give a clearer guideline.

Your votes, comments, and other feedback on this idea are very welcome. This thread will run for two weeks unless otherwise decided by an administrator. Atarumaster88 ^{(Talk page)} 03:11, January 11, 2011 (UTC)

Support this proposal

1. Atarumaster88 ^{(Talk page)} 03:11, January 11, 2011 (UTC)
2. As the co-creator.

GoodwoodDebating Society11,988 Edits 03:15, January 11, 2011 (UTC)

1. Absolutely. Jesus Freak NK says NK's 'mazin' articles 04:07, January 11, 2011 (UTC)
2. Yup. - Brandon Rhea ^(talk) 04:12, January 11, 2011 (UTC)
3. It's logical. I support logic. Trak Nar ^{Ramble on} 05:10, January 11, 2011 (UTC)
4. It seems my goals of SWFanon domination were indeed delayed due to my wife. Darn her. I can kill her if you guys want. --D.W. ^{(talk)(Glorior)}
5. -Solus ^{Talk to the Hand} 16:47, January 11, 2011 (UTC)
6. --Josh Bender^Talk 16:55, January 11, 2011 (UTC)
7. Awesome, this is. -_- Joe (Talk) (Contributions) (My novel) 22:34, January 15, 2011 (UTC)
8. Late bandwagon-ing. — Fiolli ^{{Alpheridies University ComNet}} 02:36, January 21, 2011 (UTC)
9. Support, although item twelve should include the use of file upload as a means of storing the FW on site, as an alternative to a subpage.--I'm the Chosen One^{So the Prophecy says...} 22:44, January 21, 2011 (UTC)