Forum:Good Article Registration Commission

Forums: Index > The Wizengamot > 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 ^Talk 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—an appropriately witty name will be decided upon later—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 ^Talk 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 ^Talk 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 ^Talk 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. Oread ^(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^{(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.--Matoro183 ^(Talk) 15:00, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm in favour of it as well. Are the Prefects the ones established in an earlier discussion, or are admins going to select editors for a review board or something? Oread ^(talk) 15:21, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

It looks good, but unless they are going to be the prefects from the house points system they should be called something else so as to avoid confusion. Also sorry for my rather long absence from the site, I've had some family issues that I wont bore you with, good to be back though. Jayce Carver ^Talk 18:29, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

I think the Prefects for this should be different from the other list. It looks like we've completely forgotten about the House Points system.--Matoro183 ^(Talk) 18:54, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

The intent is for the Prefects to have no relation to the House Points system. They will be two separate entities. Prefects was just the first name I came up with, and can be changed as necessary. - Cavalier One^{(Wizarding Wireless Network)} 06:54, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps uses should be able to submit their own ideas, then we vote for our favourite one. Jayce Carver ^Talk 11:22, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

I've finally gotten around to posting a draft of the House Points Game: User:Starstuff/House points. If we decide to have the Prefects from the game also serve on the Featured Article review panel, perhaps we could have one Prefect from each House as the four regular reviewers, and the remaining Prefects could take turns as the tie-breaking fifth reviewer.

But I really would prefer that the name of the Featured Article review panel be something else so as to avoid confusion. My suggestion is the Inquisitorial Squad. ★ Starstuff ^{(Owl me!)} 12:32, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Lol that's what i was going to suggest calling it. That or the Featured Article Registration Commission. Jayce Carver ^Talk 12:39, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

While Inquisitorial Squad is a decent name, I would like to avoid it as the Wookieepedia panel is known as the Inquisitorious. While I have co-opt their voting system as the basic premise of my new proposal (since I serve on both their FA and GA panels), I don't really want to look like we're completely ripping them off. Perhaps the Slug Club, Order of the Phoenix or Dumbledore's Army would be better suited. - Cavalier One^{(Wizarding Wireless Network)} 13:00, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

I hadn't thought of that, I'm sure they wouldn't mind though perhaps it would be best to play it safe. Also I feel the name should represent what the system is, what it does ext. Jayce Carver ^Talk 13:06, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

We need to keep this discussion going.--Matoro183 ^(Talk) 12:05, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Featured Article Registration Commission is good, but I think some peaople might take a FARC group here the wrong way. How about The Department of Featured Article Registration? It's members can be "Aurors" or "Unspeakables" so as to avoid confusion with the House Points game Prefects. - Nick O'Demus 12:52, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

There are several candidates we could use - the aforementioned Auror or Unspeakable, or something like Professor, Headboy, etc since Prefect and Inquisitorial Squad can't be used since they clash with other things.

The decision needs to be made whether or not to either adopt the system I laid out above (which works on Wookieepedia quite well), or not. If no more comments, questions or suggestions to the system are suggested in the next day or so, I will call a formal vote. A separate vote will be held for the name of the body. Any more suggestions should be thrown in the ring for consideration. - Cavalier One^{(Wizarding Wireless Network)} 13:08, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

I think it's a great idea, but does it mean that only Aurors (or Unspeakables or whatever name is decided on) can vote? I think that would be good, as they are obviously really regular users. They would have to be really rigorous as to even the smallest of problems with an article. I'm looking forward to it! --Margiechocoholic ^{Owl me!} 06:20, 23 July 2009 (UTC)