Forum:Featured Article Revamp

I think we need to change up the Feature Article (FA) from what it is right now. The idea is still great, but I think it needs to be changed, and here's some reasons why:


 * 1) We're running out of featured articles.  There are fewer and fewer votes and nominations every week and the quality of the articles have been going steadily downhill, IMO.  We don't have a billion articles to use, so the really good ones are going to go first.
 * 2) It's becoming an improvement drive.  I'm of the opinion that articles should be of featured quality before they're nominated, not nominated and then fixed up to become featured quality.  We're going to have a clean-up thing that will deal with this issue whenever the main page gets revamped.
 * 3) A week is too short. Pages that are of good quality go down too fast to be replaced by other ones that aren't always as good.
 * 4) A week is too long. A week seems like a long time to find an article to nominate, especially when you can't think of anything or the stuff nominated isn't up to scratch.
 * 5) Fewer and fewer votes/nominations.  I haven't voted or nominated in a while not because I don't like the idea or concept, it's that I can't think of anything to nominate that would be worthwhile. Articles that I do see nominated, I don't always agree with, therefore don't vote.
 * 6) Articles are being nominated for the wrong reasons.  Too often do I see things like "we should nominated X because we haven't had X in a while" or "X should be featured because X was featured", or similar.  That's not the point.  Featured articles should be featured because of their quality not because of any relation to anything.  If it's good, it deserves to be featured, end of story.

While it may seem that I'm beating this to death, here's my solution: We switch it up from weekly to monthly. A lot of other wikis have monthly featured articles, and it seems to work fine. A month is plenty of time for an article to get the limelight it deserves and enough time to improve/find another article in the meantime. We also wouldn't run into the problem of having to use lower-quality articles. If it's decided, we obviously need to be more extensive with voting and nominating, with a strong majority rather than a win by default with one nominated article and two votes. Rad140 (Message) 17:44, May 25, 2010 (UTC)
 * That's fine with me. It would give people a month to figure out which one they want next, and then it needs to be completed.
 * What about - people nominate an article at the middle of each month (four-week month). Editors have a week to clean the article up, and if it's still in bad shape at the end of the week, the admins nominate a couple of articles that actually deserve featured. (Ex. "Akatorimon" is one of our few articles that is 90%+ complete, and it has never even been mentioned in FA.) New article goes up at the end of the four weeks. Wash, rinse, repeat. Glorious  CHAOS!  18:22, May 25, 2010 (UTC)
 * Sure. Sounds even better. Rad140 (Message) 15:09, May 26, 2010 (UTC)
 * So if the admins end up having to nominate another article, how long does that go on for? THB  → Talk ← 18:41, June 8, 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm not exactly sure what you're getting at, but I think the plan is for editors/admins to nominate some other articles if the suggested ones aren't up to scratch, and then those are voted on until the end of the month, when the winning article goes up. Rad140 (Message) 22:55, June 8, 2010 (UTC)
 * By the way, I'm more than up for the idea of changing from weekly to monthly. I was just about to suggest it myself. THB  → Talk ← 18:54, June 8, 2010 (UTC)
 * I was actually just about to message other people about this. Rad140 (Message) 22:55, June 8, 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm just trying to understand this proposed system. So, people start voting two weeks into the new month, where they spend the third week of the month voting for an article and cleaning it up. Then, if the article is up to scratch, it goes up after the fourth week. And if the article is not up to scratch, the admins spend the fourth week deciding on a more deserving article. Does that all sound correct? THB  → Talk ← 01:49, June 10, 2010 (UTC)
 * Another thing - the point Rad140 brought up about running out of decent articles to feature. When the revamp takes place, it might be best just to wipe the slate clean and forget all past featured articles, especially since there are many good articles that have gone to waste, deserving to stay up for more than just a week. What I'm suggesting would also mean stripping those articles of their featured article status. THB  → Talk ← 17:39, June 12, 2010 (UTC)
 * About your first post, about the system: Sounds right to me.  It might be a tad complicated, but we can sort it out later if necessary.  I don't know if waiting until two weeks to start voting is necessary, but we can sort that out when the time comes.
 * About your second post (you can just call me Rad if you want, the "140" is just an old naming convention I've kept for the sake of consistency.) I agree with that, but an alternate approach would be to keep the featured article status, but to change it to, say "Past Featured Articles", to differentiate from articles that would be newly featured ("Featured Articles").  Either way works for me. Rad140 (Message) 02:15, June 13, 2010 (UTC)
 * How about, instead of admins having to nominate an article whenever voters cannot come to a decision, admins pick out a good article in advance which will be held onto across the months until it's needed (or until people happen to vote for it by coincidence)?
 * On a slightly different note, the change-over from weekly to monthly could be tricky, and I'd rather not delay it much longer, so why don't we let this week's voting go on until the end of June, then whatever people vote for will be July's featured article, so long as it's up to scratch. THB  → Talk ← 18:33, June 13, 2010 (UTC)
 * If no one says anything by the weekend, I'll just assume you're all okay with it. THB  → Talk ← 23:51, June 14, 2010 (UTC)
 * Sounds good. I'm going to post a link to this on the featured article vote page so we can get some more input.  That, and we need to write some concise rules for what this change exactly is and how it's going to work. Rad140 (Message) 20:12, June 15, 2010 (UTC)

It will be great to have more votes to compete, but I have a doubt: if I vote for an article, I can only clean it up in the third week? AnDrEy 01:24, June 17, 2010 (UTC) 01:15, June 17, 2010 (UTC)
 * No, you can clean it at any time. But that third week is your last chance if you want it featured that month - if it's not in good shape by the time the third week is over, then something else will get selected. Glorious  CHAOS!  01:48, June 17, 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, but I'm really confused here. So, does voting start two weeks in, or does it finish two weeks in. THB  → Talk ← 11:08, June 17, 2010 (UTC)


 * 1) 01 - 14: Voting for next month's featured article begins. Article can be cleaned now or at any other point.
 * 14: Voting finishes. Admins list any major problems with the article, such as section-stubs, etc.
 * 21: If article problems are not addressed by this date, the admins select a few Good Articles and present them for a runoff vote.
 * 1) 21-28: Runoff vote, if necessary.
 * 28: New article posted.

does that make more sense? Glorious  CHAOS!  17:42, June 17, 2010 (UTC)
 * Makes perfect sense. Sorry, I just wanted to be sure.
 * So what's going to happen with July's article? Perhaps, we could treat this month's vote as undecided, meaning a runoff vote would take place from June 21st. I could make sure the voting page is set up over the next couple of days. THB  → Talk ← 23:19, June 17, 2010 (UTC)
 * Actually, perhaps we're rushing into this too fast. Maybe it would be better if we just chose July's article here and now, then the voting system can begin on July 1st. That gives us plenty of time to think of a good article and get the new system ready. Also, it could be a good opportunity to show people what a good featured article should look like. So, any suggestions? I'm sure one of you must have one. <font style="font-family:neuropol; font-size:120%; text-shadow:darkgray 1px 1px">THB <font style="font-family:segoe script"> → Talk ← 16:38, June 19, 2010 (UTC)
 * Oh, I kind of thought that's what we were doing. I mostly do my own thing around here, and haven't read a huge variety of articles, but I think Akatorimon that Kryten suggested earlier might be a good one.  Looking at it though, there are some incomplete sections, but if we go by saying that the purpose of the Featured Article is to take a good article and make it even better (which I think was one of the points in the first place) then it can work. Rad140 (Message) 21:50, June 19, 2010 (UTC)

So are we keeping Prophecy the FA for the rest of the month then and when July comes around, we'll begin the voting? -- Tokyo Five-O, Bookem Takato 22:47, June 19, 2010 (UTC)
 * That's right. Whatever we choose here will go up for July, at which point everyone will start voting for the August article. <font style="font-family:neuropol; font-size:120%; text-shadow:darkgray 1px 1px">THB <font style="font-family:segoe script"> → Talk ← 17:45, June 20, 2010 (UTC)
 * Though Akatorimon may be informative, it still looks a bit of a mess. If an article's going to be featured for a whole month, we need to be doubly sure that it's of a high standard, meaning a decent image, no stubs, no broken links, no spelling/grammar/puncuation errors, etc. Unless it's cleaned up, I think we could go for something a bit better. Remember, all the past featured articles are up for selection again. Sorry to sound so critical. <font style="font-family:neuropol; font-size:120%; text-shadow:darkgray 1px 1px">THB <font style="font-family:segoe script"> → Talk ← 17:45, June 20, 2010 (UTC)
 * Besides getting the Digimon World DS and Championship sections filled in, what needs to be done? Glorious  CHAOS!  22:07, June 20, 2010 (UTC)
 * That's probably it. And to fix that red link for Gear Savana.  Either redirect it to wherever it's supposed to go or remove it.
 * As an alternative, how about going back to the beginning with And so it begins...? It was one of our first featured articles (would be a nice throw-back for a refresh) and it's good quality Rad140 (Message) 23:16, June 20, 2010 (UTC), covers all the good points, and is our defacto standard for episode articles.