I have been checking on this months two nominations for featured article and I see what many have seen. Neither article is really up to par with the standards of a featured article. But by the way we currently do things, the one with the most votes will "win". Yet both candidates have more opposes than supports. How can an article with less than 50% support "win"? Something to consider here is that when this feature began, the winning article was displayed on our front page for a month. This is no longer the case. All featured articles have an equal chance to randomly pop up on our home page, so seeing the same one for too long will not happen. With this in mind, I propose that if none of the nominated articles are up to par, we simply do not have a winner that month. An article that has say, less than 65% support vs opposes can not win. I picked 65 as it is ofthe the standard for something to "pass". Not always, I know, but it is common. Choosing this course of action will not hurt us. In fact, it will show that we have certain standards and will not lessen them just to get another article on the front page. What say you?--Degenret01 14:28, July 28, 2010 (UTC)
Support - In this case, nothing is better than something if it's not up to par.16:30, July 28, 2010 (UTC)
Support - Allowing sub-par articles to be featured makes the standards of the wiki seem lower. And per Steler, nothing would be better than an article that's not up to scratch. Suppa chuppa T C CVRC 16:51, July 28, 2010 (UTC)
Support/Comment - Per above. We could also do it like featured images, such that it's just a well-written article and doesn't have the month label. The months kind of irk me, but I imagine some people like them, so I'll just leave that there. HaloTalk 17:02, July 28, 2010 (UTC)
- Yea, which month it was featured is pretty irrelevant. I think it is just a holdover from before we started randomizing all of the featured articles. And it makes it easy to keep the process on track for voting and archiving.--Degenret01 23:52, July 28, 2010 (UTC)
Comment - Making featured articles a month-by-month thing creates a lot of issues. This month is just one example. Sometimes two great articles are nominated, but because we can only have one a month we end up forgetting about the losing article and it never gets featured even though it's outstanding. Sometimes a superior article is nominated towards the end of the month, but because the others that were nominated before it have already recieved so many votes, it stands no chance of nomination. And then, like this month, we get situations were nothing good is nominated, but we're forced to post it anyway. Sometimes (not as much recently, but it has happened plenty in the past) a series of articles about similar things (for instance, locations) win several months in a row, and later location article nominations are turned down because people want diversity, and the article quality itself is ignored. As Haloolah said, we could run it similarly to featured images. I would definitely support that change.01:31, July 29, 2010 (UTC)
Support - It doesn't even particularly matter which one "wins" anymore due to the random aspect of it on the main page. That being said, why even have it be called "Article of the Month"? Why not group them together and have them be called "Outstanding Articles" or something along those lines? I mean, tradition is tradition, but not every one needs to remain as the times change. Just my two cents, but way to go Degen. Chaos Monk Talk • Sign 01:50, July 29, 2010 (UTC)
Support - Definitely a really good idea to change this since some months do not have spectacular nominations, and should be evaluated more like the featured images.08:48, July 29, 2010 (UTC)
The New Featured article system Edit
Reading the above comments it makes sense to make our changes in full now. Thanks everyone for your comments. I do think we need slightly different standards though than we use for featured pics.
- Articles can be listed no less than two weeks to give more users a chance to review them. Really scrutinizing an article takes a lot longer than examining a picture so people need more time.
- Articles need at least seven supporters and a positive consensus to be featured. Sadly, in the past, some users have tried to rush vote this feature of our wiki (I am bewildered by this). I think seven is the minimum to ensure a variety of our users agree as to an articles quality.
- We will call them all Featured article rather than AOTM.
How does that work for people?--Degenret01 04:06, July 29, 2010 (UTC)
Support new system - It looks good, but one question. "Articles can be listed no less than weeks to give more users a chance to review them." Was there supposed to be a number there? Suppa chuppa T C CVRC 04:23, July 29, 2010 (UTC)
- errrr, yes. Thanks.--Degenret01 05:09, July 29, 2010 (UTC)
- Looks like someone had numlock off :) Anyway, I support this. It's Cook's afterbirth day! 05:04, July 29, 2010 (UTC)
- RS:Featured Article R? T? 222 talk 09:42, July 29, 2010 (UTC)
Support - Good idea.09:44, July 29, 2010 (UTC)
Support - Per my last post and all that's been said so far.18:50, July 29, 2010 (UTC)
Support - Sounds great, set it in stone! --Coolnesse 01:24, July 31, 2010 (UTC)
- Denied. It has been six days since proposed. Give it a couple more days to be thorough.--Degenret01 10:54, August 4, 2010 (UTC)
- Sorry I miscounted. 11:04, August 4, 2010 (UTC)
Comment - There is a lot of support for this proposal and really no reason to not implement it now. I think this new system should be implemented like the feature images system, except that they are given a 1 month expiry from when they were proposed and with everything Degen said.01:18, August 6, 2010 (UTC)
Closed Implemented per positive consensus.--Degenret01 03:22, August 9, 2010 (UTC)