Forum:Past FA Review: Difference between revisions
No edit summary |
No edit summary |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{ | {{Forum archives header|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 ~~~~ --> | ||
| Line 14: | Line 14: | ||
while the others would meet the standard to at least be nominated for feature the following | while the others would meet the standard to at least be nominated for feature the following | ||
*[[Ice Warrior]] | *[[Ice Warrior]] | ||
*[[Alistair Gordon Lethbridge-Stewart]] | *[[Alistair Gordon Lethbridge-Stewart]] | ||
*[[Second Doctor]] | *[[Second Doctor]] | ||
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 | 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 | ||
*[[Davros]] | *[[Davros]] | ||
Revision as of 21:26, 27 August 2010
Template:Forum archives header 
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)
- The articles you listed were not Featured Articles in the sense you're wanting them to be. They were "Spotlight On.." and "Articles of Interest." Honestly, if you're wanting to use the term "Featured Article" for articles of quality and excellence, perhaps we should change the headline on the front page to "Spotlight Article" or something along similiar lines, so we can avoid all this confusion. --Colleyd 19:30, 11 August 2008 (UTC)Woof.
Since the term for Featured Article is going to be used for something else than what is on the front page currently, I've changed the wording on the front page to Spotlight Article. Hopefully this will prevent further confusion between the two in the future. --Colleyd 16:22, 14 August 2008 (UTC)Woof.
Then They should also be moved to previously spotlighted articles instead of featured Dark Lord Xander 08:24, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
Ok i have nominated the articles i think should be featured and removed the featured star from the spotlight articles so that can continue Dark Lord Xander 08:32, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
