|
This page is an archive. Please do not edit the contents of this page, other than for maintenance. If you wish to revisit this topic, please bring it up again in a new topic. |
You all probably know what featured articles are. On this wiki, they are articles showcases on the Main page.
My home wiki is Wookieepedia. There, we have three different statuses an article can have. Comprehensive, good, and featured. The articles are all high-quality; the only difference is that CAs can have no more than 250 words, GAs no more than 3000 words (but more than 250) and FAs more than 1000 words. I'm member of both the AgriCorps and the Inquisitorius. Those are the reviewing panels managing the status article systems. We have a very high quality expectation for our articles to ensure that no un-worthy article passes. Now, why am I telling you this?
Because, your featured article system... sucks. No offense, but it does. You are essentially pulling random long articles from the wiki and then voting on them, without seemingly putting any effort into them. You then apparently vote for it, but there are really no demands except a small numbers of rules that really do not concern the quality of the article itself. For example, currently Zombies (mode) is up for voting. I looked at the article for five seconds and immediately spotted some errors, including the improper capitalization of a heading. Of course, I'm part of the review panels on Wookieepedia so I am pretty strict in reviewing, but it really struck me how your articles are inconsistent and are not looking good.
What am I trying to do? I am not looking to introduce a review panel and a strict set of rules, because that's a way too big step. I suggest that the voting system is changed: An article needs x support votes in order to pass. In addition to this, there will be an "Oppose" section. Under this section, users can leave improvement suggestions. An article wouldn't be able to become a featured article if there are any outstanding suggestions, a.k.a. objections. Other users would try to improve the article according to the suggestions and eventually the one who left the objection would strike it and support the article.
Instead of having a weekly featured article, I suggest just nominating articles like explained above and add them to a list. Using option tags, you could have a "random featured" article on the page. The current system forces the wiki users to every time choose a different article, which leads to lower-quality pages being selected. Obviously, these changes have a lot of small details that need to be defined, but we'll work on that once we agree something must be done.
Does this seem to make any sense? Agree with my concerns? Discuss and debate below. 1358 (Talk) 20:07, November 1, 2011 (UTC)
In a nutshell: Revamp the featured article system: No weekly FAs, and the possibility to object to FAs, thus increasing the quality of them.
EDIT: By oppose section, I mean a section where people could list objections/concerns about an article. Similar to this system. (inb4 COD:NOT) 1358 (Talk) 15:05, November 11, 2011 (UTC)
Discussion[]
It makes some sense, you might wanna sum it up though. http://i.imgur.com/KUDLq.png 20:09, November 1, 2011 (UTC)
It gets boring after a week seeing the same FA on the wiki's home page. 
1. YELLOWLUCARIO TALK 20:11, November 1, 2011 (UTC)
Sounds good, I agree. I also feel some users (not mentioning any names) put up articles to make them selves look good... not because its an exceptionally good article that should be shared with the community. 
N7 TC 20:12, November 1, 2011 (UTC)
This makes great sense and could work, the pokemon wiki works on a system similar to this (they have articles for different topics, Location, Pokemon, Trainer, etc.) but where would we put 3 articles on the little space we have left on the main page? REDSKIN-26
20:13, November 1, 2011 (UTC)
- I was actually wanting to have a random list. Every time you'd enter the Main page, the introduction (stuff before the first heading) of a randomly selected FA would appear. 1358 (Talk) 20:15, November 1, 2011 (UTC)
- Oh you mean <option> the articles, like have the CA as one the FA as one and the GA as one (or what ever we decide upon) yeah I can see that working nicely. REDSKIN-26
20:18, November 1, 2011 (UTC)
- Check out Darthipedia. My idea is something along the lines of the "Featured Sithspawn". Note that if you click "reload", a different one will appear. This is what I want to do. 1358 (Talk) 20:20, November 1, 2011 (UTC)
- Oh you mean <option> the articles, like have the CA as one the FA as one and the GA as one (or what ever we decide upon) yeah I can see that working nicely. REDSKIN-26
I totally agree with this, seeing as normally near the release of a new CoD game, that game itself becomes FA just by popularity, not by quality.-Diegox223 Zed's dead, baby.
20:13, November 1, 2011 (UTC)
- Look at the FA dates for game that are featured. None of them are in the month that they're released. CoaZTalk 01:59, November 3, 2011 (UTC)
I personally don't like this idea. If you see a problem, fix it. The current FAs are picked by the community, and thus the best choices aren't always in the running. I'd rather have the community as a whole pick an article then a select board of editors, who might have biased opinions that differ from other users of the community. 
CoaZTalk 01:59, November 3, 2011 (UTC)
I feel your requirement for a certain amount of supports will fail because we will never know how many users will participate in FA each time. Shotrocket6 02:02, November 3, 2011 (UTC)
While the idea is good, the only part I disagree on is the ability to be able to vote down, as people may vote others' FA nominations to rally support for their own. The Wikia Contributor T | C | E | Q23:34, November 3, 2011 (UTC)
Me gusta; I miss being able to oppose the FAs. Smuff[citation provided] 23:39, November 3, 2011 (UTC)
How about "articles you may like"? Basically on the homepage it shows off our best articles, like you said but with a different name, so it's more fitting. YELLOWLUCARIO TALK 21:50, November 4, 2011 (UTC)
I agree. Taking out opposes was a big downer for me. Since most of the articles nominated were crap, I never voted. DarkMetroid567 16:50, November 5, 2011 (UTC)
- Personal opinion of the game=/=state of article. And at least it wasn't like a certain article that was FA, the went into the Improvement Drive. CoaZTalk 02:01, November 6, 2011 (UTC)
- If it was about my opinion of BO, I would've nominated it for ID. But since it's about how good the article is, I thought it's the best we have atm and nominated it for FA. - MLGISNOT4ME [Talk] - 15:16, November 6, 2011 (UTC)
- Just because I called it "crap" doesn't mean it's an opinion. I stated it because the article is in pretty bad shape. DarkMetroid567 00:16, November 17, 2011 (UTC)
How about we allow only 1 support and only 1 oppose? This stops rallying support and stops us from getting the rubbish articles as FA (I hope) YELLOWLUCARIO TALK 11:48, November 6, 2011 (UTC)
Kinda agree with setting option tags in it, it would make it a little spicier. However I don't like with being able to oppose the nominations, since it would allow the rallying (or whatever the term is). If you don't want an article to become the FA, just don't support it, and instead vote for another. Simple. - 
MLGISNOT4ME [Talk] - 15:16, November 6, 2011 (UTC)
Perhaps instead of an oppose section, which could encourage the previously mentioned 'rallying', there could be a 'concerns' section. Instead of there simply being a spot to place a notice that you don't enjoy the article, it would be somewhere where people could put up things they found to be problematic in the article (say, grammar/spelling, being over-wordy, structurally-lacking, etc). This would allow the problems to have specific attention called to them, and would allow for others to fix them, improving the articles, regardless of selection. This concept would be similar to Wikipedia's featured article review, if that helps to visualize. ·Icepacks·<말해> 03:28, November 9, 2011 (UTC)
- That is what I was aiming for. Oppose was probably the wrong word. :) Could be objections? 1358 (Talk) 15:03, November 11, 2011 (UTC)
- We're on the same page then. :3. Just to add onto the idea, perhaps Featured Articles could be proposed at any time, and would switch at given time intervals (A week? Two? Still the month?) to the next on the list. Once proposed, the article would undergo this previously mentioned screening process, and would be voted on for its featured article status. At this phase, I suppose it doesn't exactly matter what it's called yet... ·Icepacks·<말해> 02:15, November 12, 2011 (UTC)
- Similar to COD:RFA? Nominate an article then if it gets enough support within a week or two, it gets added to the rotation? YELLOWLUCARIO TALK 14:33, November 12, 2011 (UTC)
- We're on the same page then. :3. Just to add onto the idea, perhaps Featured Articles could be proposed at any time, and would switch at given time intervals (A week? Two? Still the month?) to the next on the list. Once proposed, the article would undergo this previously mentioned screening process, and would be voted on for its featured article status. At this phase, I suppose it doesn't exactly matter what it's called yet... ·Icepacks·<말해> 02:15, November 12, 2011 (UTC)
Strong Support — All the ideas. I don't even know what happened to the oppose votes on FAs, we used to have them but they suddenly disappeared. 
16:58, November 12, 2011 (UTC)
Closed - Dead forum 02:07, December 18, 2011 (UTC)