Forum:Feature Articles

&nbsp

I'm not really sure what to do about this, the Tardis:Nominations for featured articles page had a lot of activity but has slipped into a limbo state. I'd like to maybe wipe out all the voting and we'll give it another go with a clean slate. Maybe have another look at it and see if we can make it easier / simpler or something to get votes happening again (as the Quote of the week has been of moderate success especially when more restrictions are added to shape the create process somewhat). Thoughts? --Tangerineduel 13:32, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, from my view of it, the number one problem facing the FA nom process is that the MOS isn't really finished. You can't judge an article's fidelity to the MOS if the MOS is itself incomplete or contradictory.
 * But beyond that, I think it's safe to say that every current nom has problems which have not been addressed by the nominator. The "limbo" comes from the fact that no one knows how to handle the objections. The system is currently lacking clear guidelines for what happens after someone objects. Indeed, the voting rules are terribly vague, especially where it comes to bringing a vote to closure.


 * 1) What's the minimum number of votes necessary for the process to close? One or two people agreeing to a thing is probably not enough, but is five? Is seven? How many votes are at the minimum threshold for approval?
 * 2) Is there a time limit? That is, if, say, 30 days passes and you've got 5 people agreeing to the vote, is that enough to close the debate in favor of the nomination?
 * 3) Is the time limit affected by the introduction of objections to the nomination? That is, if a legitimate objection is raised on the 30th day after the nomination occurred, and we've set a 30 day limit, does that make the nomination fail? Or does the clock restart after the objection is noted? Does solving the objection to the satisfaction of the objector return the countdown to the original 30th day? (That is, if you fix the problem, does the penalty period end?)
 * 4) Does an FA nom have to pass unanimously? I'd say yes, but I don't see any rules which give clear guidance on the point.
 * 5) What's the mechanism for getting rid of frivolous objections? I've seem some FA noms on Wikipedia where someone will object without comment, or object with clearly nonsensical rationale. What's our mechanism for dealing with this kind of situation?


 * So, I think there are a lot of things that need to be defined about the process before we'll ever get it really "moving". I mean, look at the comparative success of the Quote of the Week program. That's working, because there are clearly defined rules. Enough people understand the process to keep it moving forward. The problem here is that there's a vague idea that if you like an article, you can nominate it for featured status. But what happens after that is really vague. Though I think we clearly need overhaul, I wouldn't trash the current round of nominees. I would preserve those discussions as they are and then just reopen their nominations at such time as we have clear new rules in place.  Czech Out  ☎ | ✍ 02:59, 1 June 2009 (UTC)