Forum:Dealing with a lack of featured articles

Forums > Consensus track archive > Dealing with a lack of featured articles

At the time this message is left, there is only one featured article on the list of upcoming featured articles to be showcased on the main page. This open-ended and unlimited discussion thread has been created to determine how to handle a situation where we run out of featured articles to put on the main page, which may happen come January 25th. Possibilities include keeping the then-current featured article on the main page as long as necessary, or devising a system to repeat featured articles that have previously been put on the main page. These are only two potential ideas of the many that you all are capable of coming up with.

I would also just like to briefly mention that this is not a discussion intended to play the blame game as for why there is such a shortage of upcoming featured articles. At this point, it's fairly obvious why there's a shortage so there's no sense dwelling on it. This is also not a vote, but rather a discussion. Once we've had a discussion for a couple of days, we can put this up for an official vote. - Brandon Rhea ^{(talk) (contribs)} 04:33, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Discussion

Please discuss possibilities for handling this situation. - Brandon Rhea ^{(talk) (contribs)} 04:33, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Straight to the point

• We can remove the 'article must be GA first' rule. But that's just me being me, as I hate seeing both the GA and FA icon on articles, just looks ridiculous. Making them two processes removes the length of time one would have to go through to get an FA. Same requirements would apply, so I don't see any reason why this shouldn't be done. And I know we aren't here to play the blame game, although I will blame myself for not being an active reviewer lately. --VICTOR^SPEAK 08:08, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
• The downside to taking away the "the article must first be a good article" rule is that if you can go straight for featured article status, that takes away the rights of the members to vote on a lot of articles. - Brandon Rhea ^{(talk) (contribs)} 15:33, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

I completely agree woth Vic. Most GA nominations have only acted as a stepping stone for FA nominations lately. We could let all members of the site vote, and Seers could vote on changing the nomination to a GA one if they felt it would be better with that status. Drewton ^{(Drewton's Holocron)} 15:41, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

• The issue with removing GA from the stepping-stone process is, as mentioned above, completely stripping the rights of the community to vote on an article. I'm not a big fan of that idea because it means that if I ever had an inkling to bring forth The Desk' again, I would not be able to review FANs. Fix the voting process, though, and that would still be possible. Atarumaster88 ^{(Talk page)} 16:18, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Mostly per Ataru. Here's the way I see it: If an article doesn't have to become a GA first, everyone will shoot for FAs first. Which means that we'll have a huge influx of crappy articles in the FA nomination board, and the GA board, where the community decides, will have barely a trickle. If we take this approach, we'll have to change a few other things if we want enough Good Articles as well. --C3PO the Dragon Slayer ^{6,000,000 forms of communication | Dragons I've Slayed} 20:14, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Maybe, but does this community want a solution or not? Removing the GAN requirement not only gives us to separate processes, but removes the ridiculousness of having the same GA/FAs. There's no fun in that. Some articles of mine I rather make them only GA or go straight to FA. You have to trust your community members to (1) have common sense and know what articles should go for what, especially us more experienced dudes, and (2) to review FAs based on FA requirements. Removing the GAN requirement does not lower FA or GA standards. If people go straight for FA, so be it. I wouldn't care if we brought back the community vote/reviews into FAN, as long as the majority (or something) of the CoS still were needed to make it FA, that way 'popularity' doesn't win, but users can still vote in FAN. --VICTOR^SPEAK 20:35, 14 January 2009 (UTC) EDIT: No one has more to say? I'm shamelessly bumping this because I think this is a solution with potential. Perhaps I'm wrong, but can you'll at least gimme that? ;) --VICTOR^SPEAK 21:43, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

• I, personally, think Vic's onto something. I like the above idea. I never liked having an FA become a GA first. Never. It puts an extra (slow) step in the FA process, which is already slow enough, especially with procrastinators like me on the CoS. If we did this, though, we would get an influx of Tyler-level articles, and as CoS's, our job would be to review them. We could put 'Mary Sue,' 'poor formatting,' yadda yadda on typical low-quality article failures. Guess what the author would say after a week (three days spent not noticing, three days spent knowing but procrastinating, 23 hours, 50 minutes thinking about it and 10 minutes doing minor fixes)? "Fixed." When it is not. And we could not take it off the FAN because 'the author is "working" on it.' While I want to do the above, it would lead to a loooong FAN page filled with noms we couldn't get rid of. We would have to be able to get rid of articles from the FAN based on certain objections, like, say, if it doesn't follow the formatting, it will automatically get blasted from the FAN page. HOWEVER, back to the pros of Vic's idea. I like that the community could still vote, with a certain number of CoS votes. The popularity game disgusts me. However, if "You have to trust your community members [to nom the articles for the appropriate nom page]" we still have to keep in mind that when you make something idiot-proof, someone will invent a better idiot. -Solus ^{(Bird of Prey)} 16:44, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

If we want to keep people from repeatedly renominating rejected articles without fixing them, we could add a rule forbidding rejected articles from being renominated until after a certain amount of time has passed (such as a number of weeks, or whatever). -MPK ^{(MPK's Talk Page)} 17:27, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

• Both excellent ideas. That way, both rejected articles and absolute rubbish (Fail LG, MOS, common sense) will simply be removed by us Seers without warning, and then we can tell the author that he must do 'this and that' first. Even if we do get influx of bad articles, which I personally don't think we will too much, we still have our requirements that will prevent crappy articles from becoming FAs anyhow. But back to my pros as Solus said, I think community involvement should be welcome, and FAN should be ran like GAN, but with more requirements. For example, at least 4 Seers and a total of 8 users need to vote to pass a GAN, so, likewise, the same should be applied to the FAN process, with instead the majority of the Seers. So six, which would make it 6 Seers, at least a total of 10. Or something like that. --VICTOR^SPEAK 20:32, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Anyone? –Victor^talk 00:11, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
    • Um, to answer Vic's "anyone" I'll repeat what I said and say per above. -Solus ^{(Bird of Prey)} 02:04, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

OK, so is anyone even going to try and reach and consensus? Not even the thread creator is trying anymore, nor those who messed with this thread in the first place, but I am. So, to those of you who are always complain about no community involvement, here's your precious moment to get involved. Question: Do we have a consensus? Should we remove the 'GAN' first process from the FAN process or not? Just answer yes or no. If a consensus is reached, then we can make this our focus discussion, determining amount of votes needed, length of time required, and any other processes you can all think of. Because otherwise, this thread is going no where, and those of you complaining about FA lag will have no one to blame but yourselves. –Victor^talk 21:27, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

• I've stopped paying attention because this thread was turned into an unorganized mess and I'm not about to waste my time trying to make heads or tails of a discussion that should have been incredibly simple. If you guys want to remove the GAN first, FAN second process (while keeping the GANs intact anyway) then create a new thread with a proper vote, not this cluster!@#$ that raped the original intent of the thread. - Brandon Rhea ^{(talk) (contribs)} 21:38, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Are you feeling alright, Brandon? We're doing our best to come up with a proper solution. I think Victor's suggestion would work the best. Does anyone feel that we're ready to create a vote on this, or does anyone like to come up with more suggestions first? --Michaeldsuarez ^{(Talk) (Deeds)} 22:39, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

What do you mean am I feeling alright? o_O - Brandon Rhea ^{(talk) (contribs)} 22:47, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Nevermind; just forget I said anything. --Michaeldsuarez ^{(Talk) (Deeds)} 22:49, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

If it's for my choice of words then that's just for emphasis lol. - Brandon Rhea ^{(talk) (contribs)} 22:50, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Sorry about that. --Michaeldsuarez ^{(Talk) (Deeds)} 22:52, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

This would be the best choice. Drewton ^{(Drewton's Holocron)} 22:53, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

• OK, with consensus from Michael, Drewton, Solus, and myself, (and MPK, sort of) I will begin a new thread to actually vote (or amend if necessary) on a proposal like this. –Victor^talk 04:50, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Okay, please see Forum:GAN/FAN amendment. Thank you! –Victor^talk 05:15, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Feature Award Winners

OK. I think we should show not just the old or same FAs for extra time, but the Wiki Award articles that won. Now because the wiki awards are still going, I say we show the previous wiki award won articles (3rd Wiki Awards please). It’s not fair just to show a FA article longer than others just because of a shortage or showing previous FA winners. This will show users the quality of articles that can make a winner in one of the WA categories. Even show Best Author, by just showing the user's user page intro. With the "This weeks Featured Article" can be changed to e.g. "2008's Best Author" whenever the admin wants to. Then when a FA comes, just change the heading back to "This weeks Featured Article". If we finish the 2008 ones, we start with 2009s winners. That’s my other possibility. --Arav the Undersith ^{(Contact Me) (My contributions)} 08:17, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

• I disagree with that, simply because putting a paragraph from a user's userpage won't work. User pages lack continuity like articles and besides, this is for featured articles, not Wiki Award winners. Wiki Award winners are something that the community deems the best of the year, but not necessary a featured article (although likely). --VICTOR^SPEAK 08:20, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Best Author one does sound dodgy, but with the others, it would be nice to show the winners even more exclusively.--Arav the Undersith ^{(Contact Me) (My contributions)} 08:29, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

• As for allowing Wiki Award winners, my stance is no freakin' way. No, seriously. Look at a lot of the past wiki award winners. They're pure and utter crap. I don't care if people take offense at that. It's the truth. There was a reason that myself and others went through the torturous third article review to purge the FAs of garbage. There has to be a better way than undoing all the quality-control measures that were implemented recently. And my perspective is, if users aren't capable or interested in producing articles that meet the standards, then perhaps a solution might be to have the Council of Seers write a tutorial in the form of an article and feature that for any times when there aren't enough FAs. A placeholder, if you will. And if you don't understand that idea, just say so, and I'll make a little subpage to demonstrate. Atarumaster88 ^{(Talk page)} 16:18, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Andrew's right about the Wiki Award candidates. Technically speaking, there's nothing that sets those articles apart from anything you'd find by clicking the "Random page" button to the left. FAs and FAs alone should be showcased like FAs on the Main Page. -MPK ^{(MPK's Talk Page)} 16:32, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Per MPK and Ataru; the standards have risen since the First Wiki Awards. --C3PO the Dragon Slayer ^{6,000,000 forms of communication | Dragons I've Slayed} 20:14, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

How about no? Per Vic and Ataru. Though the tutorial article interests me. If you had the time, could you further explain this, Ataru? -Solus ^{(Bird of Prey)} 16:46, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

• You can put this on a separate topic if you wish; I care not. Here's the head and skeleton of a tutorial. It's written (or could/will be) to more or less conform to MoS (sections being a notable deviation), and could be used by the Star Wars Fanon community as a "placeholder FA", or as some anonymous soul in IRC said, "What we should be featuring but aren't right now." You would place this in your Main Page slot for FA in the event of having no featured articles. Its purpose is twofold: One, to provide something of reasonable quality to place on the Main Page. Two, to educate and inform the readers and writers of Star Wars Fanon on what's expected of an FA and what to strive for. Kills two banthas with one blaster shot. If there is notable community interest in this idea exhibited over the weekend, then I and the two anonymous accomplices I have recruited can have this finished before the 25. While this may not be true for all users on Star Wars Fanon, I assure you that, if the interest is shown, this will be finished—on time. You have my word. Atarumaster88 ^{(Talk page)} 07:05, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
  • The tutorial looks great. Although I think that it could be used every once in a while, I don't think that we should use it every time we have a shortage. --Michaeldsuarez ^{(Talk) (Deeds)} 22:47, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Feature Good articles

Why not just showcase the GAs instead? Or are we running out of them too?--Nightmare975 17:35, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

GA's are already on the Main Page. Anyway, people are more interested in viewing FA's. --Michaeldsuarez ^{(Talk) (Deeds)} 17:39, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, they get a simple line that says "This weeks good article is..." Give them the FA spot for now until we get more FAs.--Nightmare975 18:10, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

• That's unfair to those articles that have attained featured article status, because by giving them the featured article spot you're featuring them. That distinction is meant to be reserved only for featured articles. - Brandon Rhea ^{(talk) (contribs)} 18:18, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Per B-Rhea. Well said. -Solus ^{(Bird of Prey)} 16:47, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Loop Featured articles

Why don't we just loop the FA's, so when we run out of new FA's, we'll display FA's from the beginning of the list. --Michaeldsuarez ^{(Talk) (Deeds)} 16:36, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Because the majority of the FAs starting in 2006 and ending at around Spring 2008 are utter trash and/or formerly featured articles. As Ataru said, we can't go back and start awarding articles with a lack of quality like we used to. - Brandon Rhea ^{(talk) (contribs)} 17:03, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

I didn't mean include Former FA's. In addition, if there's still trash in there, then you should've removed the FA status of those articles during the last purge. --Michaeldsuarez ^{(Talk) (Deeds)} 17:24, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

We did, but the list you're referring to is a historical archive of everything that's ever been a featured article at one time or another. - Brandon Rhea ^{(talk) (contribs)} 17:30, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Then you misunderstood what I meant. --Michaeldsuarez ^{(Talk) (Deeds)} 17:32, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Uh, Michael, when you tell someone that they've misunderstood what you meant, it's usually helpful if you would then clarify what you meant. - Brandon Rhea ^{(talk) (contribs)} 17:41, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm not referring to a physical list found on the wiki, and I wasn't talking about Star Wars Fanon:Featured articles/History. Instead, I was referring to a list that exists in concept or theory. We'll review articles in Category:Featured articles and display the ones that haven't been on the Main Page for a while. --Michaeldsuarez ^{(Talk) (Deeds)} 17:49, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

So, basically, your idea is to play favorites? That doesn't seem very fair. - Brandon Rhea ^{(talk) (contribs)} 18:07, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

No, just show the ones that haven't been on the Main Page in a while. Time is the factor, not favor. I can't believe how easily you can misunderstand something; it's a simple concept. --Michaeldsuarez ^{(Talk) (Deeds)} 18:21, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm not misunderstanding what you're saying right now. I'm trying to have a discussion with you and ask you a question to try to get more detail out of you so I can make a better opinion on what you're trying to say. If you feel that I'm misunderstanding something, it's your job to be giving more detail, not saying "this is so easy! How can you not understand it?" Now, also in the interest of fairness, how would you decide which ones are put back onto the main page? By putting old ones back up, you're basically saying that they are more deserving than others to be put on the main page again. That may not be the intention, but that's how it would come across. - Brandon Rhea ^{(talk) (contribs)} 18:29, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure why they would think that; time is indifferent, so I don't believe that that would be the point coming across to people. We'll just place the oldest one on first and work out way back up (of course, if there's a new Featured article, you'll automatically feature it the next month). Also, I'm not seeing you placing so much hard time on everyone else to get answers. Really, you must remember that I'm not on the CoS, so it's probably not within my rights to come up with the details. Although it's the responsibility of the Seers to come up the new FA's (and therefore, not my problem), I'm here as a volunteer with the intention of helping them. --Michaeldsuarez ^{(Talk) (Deeds)} 19:01, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm not placing "so much hard time" on anyone else because no one else is saying that I'm misunderstanding them. Had they been saying that or what they were saying wasn't as clear as it could have been then I would have done the same thing. - Brandon Rhea ^{(talk) (contribs)} 21:02, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Nevermind, I appear to have lost the ability to speak in a clear, understandable way… --Michaeldsuarez ^{(Talk) (Deeds)} 21:13, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

If it comes to it, this may be one of the best solutions - to re-feature articles in order by time that have passed all of the FA purges, cycling up to the present and interjecting current FAs when they arrive. If that is what you meant, MDS. However, I would rather we not be forced to do this. Sort of a last resort. -Solus ^{(Bird of Prey)} 16:49, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Per Solus. This would a good idea to fall back on if we can't work anything else out. In fact, I think I like this one more than all of the other ideas here. -MPK ^{(MPK's Talk Page)} 17:32, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Per Solus and MPK if it comes down to it. –Victor^talk 00:30, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

• I really think we'd by fine without doing anything like this, but looping the FAs daily would be a good idea, I think. If they're put up each week, that would take more than a year, which would be absurd. Drewton ^{(Drewton's Holocron)} 00:42, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Community votes on FAs instead of GAs

One idea I had is to switch the systems of the FAs and the GAs; instead of having the community vote for the best and the elite vote for the best of the best, have the elite pick out the best and the community narrow it from there. Since the CoS, which, being a "mandatory" vote, bases its votes mostly on "whether it fits the policies," and general users, who vote voluntarily, usually vote based on "wow that was an awesome article!"... Perhaps it makes more sense to have the CoS choose the GAs and change the community voting to the FAs. --C3PO the Dragon Slayer ^{6,000,000 forms of communication | Dragons I've Slayed} 20:14, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

• No. You said yourself: 'users who vote voluntarily usually vote based on "wow that was an awesome article!" '. FANs are to be the best of the best, and this could potentially let Darth Tyler stuff slip through the system. I suppose normal users could post objections, as that could speed things up. But things could be kept as they are, as to not overcomplicate matters. Unit 8311^Talk! 20:19, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Far be it from me to tell this community what to do with its FA crisis, but returning FA to the "popularity contest" days of old is, bluntly, inane. Atarumaster88 ^{(Talk page)} 20:26, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
  • My point is that, whereas a Good Article ought to be something that fits with the standards, an FA should be something outstanding, something thrilling and satisfying to read. Perhaps it's my naiveté, but I don't know of objective standards or regulations that qualify something that's magnificent to read. The true measure of a great story is how much the audience cares about what's happening; and since the community is an audience that votes voluntarily, they'll most likely vote on something that really is impressive. A CoS (and I recall this from firsthand experience as a DL) generally checks off criteria on the rules, which can let in some boring work that nevertheless has enough pictures, a long enough intro, etc. The idea behind this point is to check if it follows the rules first, which is what the CoS tends to do, and then let the community decide if it goes above and beyond. --C3PO the Dragon Slayer ^{6,000,000 forms of communication | Dragons I've Slayed} 20:32, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

You're not supposed to vote for featured articles based on whether or not there's some enthralling storyline. If there is a detailed article about a guy who sits in a garbage scowl all day and it meets the requirements, it should be a featured article. Whether this man is a complete bore is, in my opinion, irrelevant. If you start going back to "well this seems like a fun story" and other mindsets like that, you erase all of the hard work that was done during the third featured article review. - Brandon Rhea ^{(talk) (contribs)} 20:55, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Ah, well that's where we disagree. I think if we are to exhibit a Featured Article for everyone to see on the Main Page, it should be an article people would like to read. I think there is a place for "fits the guidelines," and that should be the Good Articles. I'm fine with a guy on a trash can being a Good Article if it's a good article, but I think we should Feature something that not only fits the guidelines, but genuinely impresses the audience. --C3PO the Dragon Slayer ^{6,000,000 forms of communication | Dragons I've Slayed} 21:04, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

If you want to read a great story, check out the featured works section of the main page. Featured articles are meant to adhere to standards of encyclopedic quality, not narrative prose and storytelling ability. - Brandon Rhea ^{(talk) (contribs)} 21:06, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

If that's the case, then main space articles should be included as candidates in the FWs. And I also suggest putting more emphasis on the FW system than on FAs and GAs, since theoretically we at SW Fanon are writing for an audience, and our mission statement is NOT to provide newbie fanoneers with carbon copy templates for them to follow. We're here to encourage creativity, not infringe on it. If we are to glamorize something on the Main Page, make it something that is interesting, and change the FAs to a list of examples of in the MoS. --C3PO the Dragon Slayer ^{6,000,000 forms of communication | Dragons I've Slayed} 21:15, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Ah, that's enlightening. I think the core of our disagreement here is what we perceive the purpose of Star Wars Fanon to be. - Brandon Rhea ^{(talk) (contribs)} 21:22, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

• Uh, no. Articles do not equal featured work. Featured work is for narrative (or photonovel) work, work that requires lots of creativity, time, dedication. Creating an article is not even close to that, and if you want to be flowery and write 'creatively' (out of line from MoS, in other words), then you may do so, but it will never be featured, not as an article or 'work'. If you want to do that, why not dedicate time to a narrative instead? Articles are for encyclopedic work. Sure, most articles are based off the mind, and that should be creative enough. But, I myself have changed my perception and instead (as you may or may not have seen, doesn't matter) will be writing my narratives first, basing articles strictly off them for facts, to make them like a Wookieepedia-encyclopedic-ish article while still having that 'creative' edge through my fan fic. --VICTOR^SPEAK 21:39, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Keeping in mind the truth that Vic has stated, I stand basically with C3PO on this one. FAs should be interesting to read. If it only has to follow formatting rules and match up with 'the checklist,' then why do we have the Mary Sue rule? Story quality. A Mary Sue article can fit 'the checklist,' but we deny it based on story quality. To allow boring, low quality, low-creativity plots on the Main Page but not let them be Mary Sues is hypocrisy. I have no qualms on objecting an article for FA because it is boring. This is Star Wars Fanon, we are not limited by reality, RL or Canon! We don't have to write articles on boring things just because they exist! That's the beauty of it. That's why I'm here - because I'm not limited to writing conclusive articles on things as mundane as Darth Vader's armor - which I have done. I know this is a wiki, but it's still a wiki based on imagination, hence the quote on the main page. Imagination has the potential for something incredibly interesting. You can make a boring article interesting. When someone nominates a boring article, either they're setting them up with strange self-made-rules that say they can only add this-and-this and such-and-such to an article, no more. We don't have to, though. A bit of extra work, and a boring article can be interesting and imaginative. When we object to an article based on boredom-ness, that doesn't mean that the article doesn't have potential. That doesn't mean that the author has to work hard to make it so. It just means it's boring. Star Wars Fanon does not limit you to boring. -Solus ^{(Bird of Prey)} 17:08, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

• I think 3PO was saying, though, that the thrilling story should be the most important part of an FA, which it shouldn't be. - Brandon Rhea ^{(talk) (contribs)} 17:29, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Correct. That is 100% true. Though that doesn't negate quality, which is all I'm saying. PS I'm not arguing and that <<< wasn't argumentative. I'm sorry to disappoint you, I know how you love to argue. -Solus ^{(Bird of Prey)} 17:38, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

If you guys wanted to you could just 66-33 those bad boys... the staff or whatever count for 66% percent of every FA vote and the community counts for 33% Or maybe 51-49 type of thing.--I'm the Chosen One ^(Talk) 18:00, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Brandon: What I was saying was that a "thrilling story" (not the only way to make an article fun to read) was part of what distinguishes an FA from a GA. Since FAs, at the moment, have to also be GAs, FAs too must fit the guidelines, comply with the checklist. --C3PO the Dragon Slayer ^{6,000,000 forms of communication | Dragons I've Slayed} 02:30, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

• C3PO, both GA/FA can be thrilling, or perhaps GA can be more thrilling than FA. Depends on subjectivity. Either way, story alone cannot determine whether or not an article is GA/FA worthy. However, you can vote for whatever story, no matter the 'non-FA'ish, in the Wiki Awards. ;) –Victor^talk 04:49, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Abolish GAs #1

Disclaimer about this and the other proposals I'm giving: I'm not limiting myself to contributing my best ideas, but all my ideas. I do see problems with each of my proposals; but since I also see problems with the others, I'm trying to keep ideas going around in hopes that someone will be inspired to find a really really good idea. Plus, when we go over all possible solutions, we think about values and look into the future more, which we should always do when making a policy change.

Since what we're doing is speculating and discussing ideas here, I thought I'd throw this idea out: What if we abolished GAs, put a community vote on the FAs, and change the CoS's job to something more befitting their name like nominating FAs. If the CoS was obligated, not to vote, but to put up articles for consideration, then the community's tendency to vote for their friend's articles is a bit compensated for. However, one problem I foresee in this course is that the CoS members will have their talk pages flooded by FA-lobbyists (you know, "Come check out my artical do u think it could be a FA?"). --C3PO the Dragon Slayer ^{6,000,000 forms of communication | Dragons I've Slayed} 20:36, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

• Terrible, terrible, terrible, terrible idea. This is a complete reversion to how things used to be, and those are very bad things. If the CoS is not required to vote, then guess what? They won't vote! If they don't vote and their votes are not required, then people aren't actually going to take the time to review articles. They'll get their buddies to vote for them, because that's all that will be needed. Just because people can't nominate articles themselves doesn't mean that the tendency to vote for their friends articles is suddenly compensated for. Basically, an idea like this takes away every gain that was made in making the featured articles of this website somewhat legitimate. - Brandon Rhea ^{(talk) (contribs)} 20:58, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
  • To play the devil's advocate, this system would theoretically prevent the groupthink vote-for-friends system because the community can only vote on what the CoS puts forward. --C3PO the Dragon Slayer ^{6,000,000 forms of communication | Dragons I've Slayed} 21:07, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Yet the CoS isn't going to be putting forward completely perfect articles. Any article put forward is going to need a lot of work. All featured article candidates always require extensive reviews. That's just a fact of the featured article recognition process. If you put forth articles that need work, you need people there who are going to do the work. If you say that the CoS doesn't have to do the work, then they won't. No one else will do it either. Therefore, you're putting yourself into a situation where, regardless of whether it's your friend voting or not, subpar articles will be getting through on a constant basis. - Brandon Rhea ^{(talk) (contribs)} 21:10, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

• Yeah, having us (CoS) nominate stuff is unfair, apart from the fact that nobody would do their job since they wouldn't be required anymore, really. A job to nominate? How useless that would be. I disagree with this idea wholeheartedly. --VICTOR^SPEAK 21:35, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
• Per above. DO NOT WANT. -Solus ^{(Bird of Prey)} 17:15, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Abolish GAs #2

If the bureaucratic process of making an FA is too much; just take away the GAs. Now, of course, the community should still have a say, so like above, the community can nominate and then mini-vote on an article, which a quota of a certain number of net votes required to pass it for consideration as an FA, before the CoS reviews it. --C3PO the Dragon Slayer ^{6,000,000 forms of communication | Dragons I've Slayed} 20:36, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

• I think we all need to realize that the CoS (myself included, yes) are not some uber elite group of reviewers. We were entrusted to review articles and stuff yet most of us don't do it, do it rarely, or do it crappily. So, the CoS need to be taken off that overrated 'omg dey r teh ultimate' pedestal we've all hyped them (er, us) to be. I would like to focus more on community involvement. --VICTOR^SPEAK 20:49, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

There's no point in taking away the good article process. If you take good articles away, then you're leaving only featured articles, which means there's only one very high standard for article recognition. Good articles need to remain in order to give recognition to articles that are above average quality, but not above and beyond above average like featured articles are meant to be. Also, I agree with Vic in that the Seers need to be taken off of that pedestal, but it should be noted that we do not put ourselves on that pedestal. Like with a lot of positions of responsibility, people have a tendency to push the people in the positions onto a pedestal or into a place of high regard. Once those responsible people are up on the pedestal or in high regard, those who pushed them there start losing their minds and start complaining about how evil those people are in their positions. It's hypocrisy, really. - Brandon Rhea ^{(talk) (contribs)} 21:01, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

• Per Bac. -Solus ^{(Bird of Prey)} 17:16, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Wing Proposal

Here is my proposal to deal with the lack of featured articles. 1) Abolish Good Article status. 2) Allow members you have been here a month and have 250 mainspace edits to vote on Featured Articles. The way Featured Articles are chosen will be the same way Good Articles are chosen. If the majority of board members do not believe that an article is deserving of featured article status, then despite the number of general members in favor of it the article will not become a good article, and vice-a-versa. Therefore, junk can still be rejected from becoming featured articles. Wing ^msg 20:03, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

• Why couldn't you just put this in one of the pre-existing sections instead of glorifying yourself with a new section? Man this cluster!@#$ of a thread has gotten out of hand.... - Brandon Rhea ^{(talk) (contribs)} 20:05, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
  • I saw C3PO had made two sections with two different proposals, so I thought I had to do the same. Wing ^msg 20:08, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Your proposal isn't anything new. There are already proposals for abolishing good article status, which isn't going to happen, and proposals for letting everyone vote on featured articles. A quick scan of this thread would have shown you that. - Brandon Rhea ^{(talk) (contribs)} 20:18, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Long-term solution

The premise of this suggestion is 1) We'll eventually have more FA/GA woes in the future (we've reformed the rules about a dozen times in the past) and 2) It's possible that if there were more noticeably outstanding articles, we wouldn't have to deal with a lack of FAs. This suggestion addresses the supply of FA candidates, instead of the rate of their promotion.

Since Brandon complained about clutter in the section above, I'll try to make this to the point.

What if we had a portal, (an either formal or informal community project) that had the following:

1. A way for users to request critiques and reviews of their articles or works, reminiscent of the Critic's Lounge, BUT users may REQUEST reviews. Also, instead of having the whole thing on one page, this portal that you could consider a partial reform of the CL would be spread out across several pages, different types of content going on different pages. See Portal:Avian Hunt for an example; this new portal could have a forum page for article reviews. However, the limits are set so that users who are trying to get their article to Featured or Good status are the focus, not just any old article.
   • Now, here's my rationale for this. The CL has been unpopular because it's poorly formatted and because people tend not to go out of their way to critique just any old article. However, there is evidence that authors of articles are hungry for feedback. Just check the Fanon Cantina for titles like "Come see my artical". The CL, at the moment, doesn't give much incentive to write reviews, but if a mini-community were sustained and users were able to request feedback, it could work.
2. A place for users to contribute general writing tips and suggestions to help users trying to write an FA. Depending on how well this goes, it could develop into a writing class.
3. Walkthroughs or tools to create articles that fit with the MoS, the GA guidelines, and the FA guidelines.
4. Forums that allow users to discuss ideas for making Good or Featured articles.
5. Wookiee-cookie (or whatever) exchanges, as incentive for helpful reviewing or writing something good. Nix this idea if you don't like it.

Basically, this idea is to expand and reform the Critic's Lounge into a writing center, which is more community-oriented, as opposed to now, where the CL depends on someone with no incentive to review something. I've seen a couple of good online writing class forums that we could model after, none of them Star Wars related. This would be an attempt to solve not just the lack of FAs, but some of the following:

1. Users prematurely trying to Feature their articles.
2. Apathy with the Critic's Lounge.
3. Difficulty finding FA candidates.
4. Crappiness of some articles.
5. Community spirit (that is, lack thereof)
6. It may also help start more collaborative projects, which have a history of either flopping or developing into the most dynamic and impressive articles on the site. Obviously we aim for the latter, but the writing center could diminish the possibility of the former.

Because I realize that we'd hesitate to adopt a radical addition like this, I'll try to draft up what it could look like in the Sandbox. And add examples. This will probably take all day, but I kind of like this idea. Much more than the other ideas I've posted, at least. Would anybody be interested in submitting their articles for voluntary review, voluntarily reviewing submitted articles, or posting writing tips in a center like this? Just for the record, I'd be willing. --C3PO the Dragon Slayer ^{6,000,000 forms of communication | Dragons I've Slayed} 16:12, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

• Allow me to point you to the proposed tutorial idea for possible inclusion. Atarumaster88 ^{(Talk page)} 16:36, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Hey, thanks for reminding me of that! --C3PO the Dragon Slayer ^{6,000,000 forms of communication | Dragons I've Slayed} 17:17, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

This seems more like a solution to the CL problems as opposed to a solution to the FA problems, but I can see where it could crossover and potentially help the FAs. Interesting idea. - Brandon Rhea ^{(talk) (contribs)} 17:19, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

• Okay, I made an example in the Sandbox. --C3PO the Dragon Slayer ^{6,000,000 forms of communication | Dragons I've Slayed} 15:58, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Why?

Why do we even need to deal with this? I mean, guys, let's look at this. If we are to the point where are going to run out of Featured Articles, maybe we should just let the Main Page blank! That way, people get a true understanding of the quality level of most of the crap on this wiki. I say, we let it ride out on its own. Who's with me? -- Joe Butler ^{(Talk to me)} 04:48, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

• I'd always have thought that there would be an excess of featured articles :P guess that us on HFFW just have more vigor ^^ (and that our quality is through the basement floor). Well, this forum was the farthest from what I expected :) RelentlessRecusant ^{Talk • Contribs • Edits} 05:11, 1 February 2009 (UTC)