Forum:Overhaul of featured article nominations: Difference between revisions
m (Robot: Automated text replacement (-{{Forumheader|Panopticon}} +{{Archive|Panopticon archives}})) |
m (Bot: Replacing category Out of date with Out-of-date discussions) Tag: thread closure |
||
| (3 intermediate revisions by 2 users not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{Archive|Panopticon archives}} | {{Archive|Panopticon archives}} | ||
<!-- Please put your content under this line. Be sure to sign your edits with four tildes ~~~~ --> | <!-- Please put your content under this line. Be sure to sign your edits with four tildes ~~~~ --> | ||
I would like to suggest that the current procedure at | I would like to suggest that the current procedure at Feature Article nominations is changed. At the moment, it seems too much as if anything goes. I'm sure this is eventually regulated before the article is chosen, but to take [[August]]'s nominations as an example, none of them are really of great quality. [[Utopia (Utopia)|Utopia]] (that's the planet, not the episode) has a cleanup tag, [[Jack Harkness]] has a complete imbalance of information with about two lines for some episodes and two pages for others. ''[[White Darkness]]'' is somewhat viable, but has far too many red links to be featured. | ||
What I'm proposing is that the nominations are done in a discussion style, where feedback can be given leading to article improvement. The voting doesn't work in any case as most people nominate and then forget to vote or place their vote in the wrong place. Thoughts?--{{User:Skittles the hog/sig}} 17:44, July 23, 2011 (UTC) | What I'm proposing is that the nominations are done in a discussion style, where feedback can be given leading to article improvement. The voting doesn't work in any case as most people nominate and then forget to vote or place their vote in the wrong place. Thoughts?--{{User:Skittles the hog/sig}} 17:44, July 23, 2011 (UTC) | ||
[[Category:Out-of-date discussions]] | |||
Latest revision as of 00:52, 18 November 2024
I would like to suggest that the current procedure at Feature Article nominations is changed. At the moment, it seems too much as if anything goes. I'm sure this is eventually regulated before the article is chosen, but to take August's nominations as an example, none of them are really of great quality. Utopia (that's the planet, not the episode) has a cleanup tag, Jack Harkness has a complete imbalance of information with about two lines for some episodes and two pages for others. White Darkness is somewhat viable, but has far too many red links to be featured.
What I'm proposing is that the nominations are done in a discussion style, where feedback can be given leading to article improvement. The voting doesn't work in any case as most people nominate and then forget to vote or place their vote in the wrong place. Thoughts?--Skittles the hog - talk 17:44, July 23, 2011 (UTC)
