Forum:Good Article Registration Commission

This may seem like a very bold proposition, but, I've thought it through, and I think it would be benefical for the community. I'd like to propose the formation of a "Good Article Registration Commission". The reason for this is, I've noticed a lot of featured articles on this site are, and please don't take offense to this, not deserving of the status. Also I'm seeing more and more articles slip through the net and being labelled as featured for things like, "It has loads of pretty pictures" and "It's really long", the most common one is "He/She is a really important character". These are not valid reasons for showcasing an article, and to be honest most of the featured articles here would'nt pass for good article status on Wookieepedia let alone featured. Therfore I think the creation of such a system would be extremely beneficial, to ensure that only the very best become featured, whilst still giving recognition to the good, and the hard work that goes into them. Like i said before I'm not trying to cause offense, I'm just thinking of ways to better the site, cheers.  Jayce Carver  Talkundefined 13:48, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Firstly, the implementation of a Featured Article review system is a good idea, with perhaps a core of regular contributors whose job it is to review all nominated articles, as well as reviewing all previous FAs to determine whether or not they are still worthy of their status. A comprehensive article checklist should also be created. Speaking as a member of both the Inquisitorius and AgriCorps (panels which review Featured and Good articles respectively over on the Wook), and a former regular FA writer for this site (which is something I really need to get back into), I would be interested in taking the lead and setting this up. - Cavalier One ( Wizarding Wireless Network ) 14:17, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
 * After consulting with DarkJedi613 on IRC, we are proposing the creation of a panel of users who's function will be to review all Featured Articles, and ensure they are of a high-quality, and adhere to a certain set of guidelines that will be established (possibly within this thread). Currently, we are advocating four members to be appointed to this body&mdash;an appropriately witty name will be decided upon later&mdash;and both myself and DJ are willing to participate. The panel will also review all current FAs, with the view to stripping them of their status if they are deemed to be not up to scratch. Every FA nomination will still need a minimum number of votes to pass, but at least two of those votes must come from members of this body. - Cavalier One ( Wizarding Wireless Network ) 15:50, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

This is for the best, the entire tone of the site will be lifted by us being more discriminate with our featured articles. As the user who proposed the system, would I be eligible to be one of the four? Even if not, I feel the body should be made up of both sysops and normal users, so it's not quite so elitist.  Jayce Carver  Talkundefined 16:58, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
 * You would be elgible to do it. Slight problem with that way Cav -- if two members of this body vote for an article and two vote against it...? What happens? Also, would an odd number be better in tie breaking? -- DarkJedi613 (Talk) 19:18, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

I've only just realized that. Yeah we would need an odd number to ensure a unanimous vote.  Jayce Carver  Talkundefined 19:24, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, no a unanimous vote would be everyone voting for or against something ("complete agreement"). But your point is taken. I'm not sure if this has come up or is implied at all or anything but I would be against having both "Featured" & "Good" articles or anything -- we simply don't have enough articles for it.  Its either featured or not. -- DarkJedi613 (Talk) 19:30, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Sorry I misused the word, majority is what I meant. What guidlines should be established?  Jayce Carver  Talkundefined 19:39, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Ah, sorry if I was a little unclear. We would adopt a more "Wookieepedia-style" voting system, where editors giving opposing votes would have to give clear objections and reasonings as to why they are opposing the article. The nominating editor would then be able to resolve the objections, and the objector would then strike their own opposing vote once their concerns are met, turning it to a positive vote. An article would therefore only pass once it has obtained the needed number of votes (two of which would be from the new panel), has been "active" for a week or more, and has no outstanding objections. If objections have been dealt with, but the objector has not been around for a period of seven days to strike them, they may be struck by members of the panel if they feel that the objections have been sufficiently dealt with. - Cavalier One ( Wizarding Wireless Network ) 08:37, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
 * That sounds like it would work pretty well. Better than people just saying "Yay I like it!" -- DarkJedi613 (Talk) 14:11, 14 November 2008 (UTC)


 * I just thought we should get this discussion going again, as it's been a while. Also, there have been a great deal of nominations for Featured Articles recently, and many of those voting for them give reasons along the lines of liking the character or the look of the article. Some articles have plenty of votes despite not being referenced and having many grammar issues. At the very least, criteria for Featured Articles should be made clearer, if not stricter as well. O r e a d (talk) 15:01, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
 * This was something I was working on, and I'm sorry that I failed to see it through. I will have a proposition up in the next few days. - Cavalier One [[Image:Gryffindorcrest.jpg|20px]]( Wizarding Wireless Network ) 11:06, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

User:Cavalier One/Prefects is up. The first part deals with a new voting system, including the addition of objections. The second part is for a panel of editors to add as a review board known as the Prefects. Please discuss. - Cavalier One ( Wizarding Wireless Network ) 12:22, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Looks much better than our current system. I also like that the prefects can remove an article's FA status, because there are definetly some that do not deserve it.--71.74.13.59 15:00, 15 April 2009 (UTC)