Forum:Past FA Review: Difference between revisions
No edit summary |
No edit summary |
||
| Line 32: | Line 32: | ||
:I don't think we should be removing their featured article status (category wise I mean), they're listed like that so we have a record of what's been a feature article so far. Though they don't necessarily need to have the star on them (I'm not really sure ''any'' of the past featured articles need a the little star). --[[User:Tangerineduel|Tangerineduel]] 16:54, 10 August 2008 (UTC) | :I don't think we should be removing their featured article status (category wise I mean), they're listed like that so we have a record of what's been a feature article so far. Though they don't necessarily need to have the star on them (I'm not really sure ''any'' of the past featured articles need a the little star). --[[User:Tangerineduel|Tangerineduel]] 16:54, 10 August 2008 (UTC) | ||
: I think i am not explaining myself right i am not talking about removing the record of them being a FA i am talking about removing their status of FA or at least improving them through re-nominating them then we can have the old for and opposed and hopefully made them into feature status. | |||
because at the moment i am not ready to create the page (which i left red-linked) for feature articles due to the fact that none of them have been voted a FA and really only for deserve to be FA's [[User:Dark Lord Xander|Dark Lord Xander]] 06:28, 11 August 2008 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 06:28, 11 August 2008
If this thread's title doesn't specify it's spoilery, don't bring any up.
Now that we have a system of nominating FA's i think its time we looked at the feature articles which have been nominated previously and either fix them up or remove there feature status.
As it stands the following (IMO) do not deserve to be FA's without a lot of work
- Adrienne Corri (short article, wikipedia)
- Marco Polo (wikipedia)
- Planet of Giants (wikipedia, needs expansion)
- Elisabeth Sladen (wikipedia, Needs Expansion, No longer up to date)
- Torchwood (stub)
while the others would meet the standard to at least be nominated for feature the following
Need to be expanded as there is a lot of information which can be used for the articles that has been left out or not explained in detail which leaves only
which qualify to be feature articles.
I think we need to remove the FA status from all the articles and put them through the nomination proccess to ensure that they meat the standard of a feature article.
The four mentioned above should pass through easy enough meaning we have a four month buffer were they can be re used (when they are officially feature articles) before we need to decide on the next feature article. Dark Lord Xander 06:41, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
- I don't think we should be removing their featured article status (category wise I mean), they're listed like that so we have a record of what's been a feature article so far. Though they don't necessarily need to have the star on them (I'm not really sure any of the past featured articles need a the little star). --Tangerineduel 16:54, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
- I think i am not explaining myself right i am not talking about removing the record of them being a FA i am talking about removing their status of FA or at least improving them through re-nominating them then we can have the old for and opposed and hopefully made them into feature status.
because at the moment i am not ready to create the page (which i left red-linked) for feature articles due to the fact that none of them have been voted a FA and really only for deserve to be FA's Dark Lord Xander 06:28, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
