Forum:Past FA Review: Difference between revisions
mNo edit summary |
No edit summary |
||
| Line 29: | Line 29: | ||
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. | 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. | 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. [[User:Dark Lord Xander|Dark Lord Xander]] 06:41, 10 August 2008 (UTC) | ||
Revision as of 06:41, 10 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)
