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)