| abstract
| - I have finished this page's rewrite, and would like for anyone interested/inquisitive to please review it/ask questions here. Thanks! 14:44, February 2, 2016 (UTC) I think it's pretty great, but I'd change a couple things:
* "articles are judged against the featured article criteria, then passed or rejected according to community consensus." I'd change "community consensus" to "committee", since the co-ordinator of the project is just one person - as the nominations page proposal suggests, at least. Despite it being normally against my beliefs, I feel having a smaller group of people selected by the community handle FAs is actually beneficial, it can prevent a tyranny of the majority scenario and ensures only experienced writers have quality control over what really is the selection of best articles (for GAs this would be less important).
* In something else that might seem completely contrary to my stance on basically everything else, I actually feel the criteria should probably be stricter. The criteria, to me, seems to work for GAs, but for FAs, I feel the selection should be narrower. I feel notability of the subject is important - I've no doubt we could have a very well written page on a random Guard, but does the reader learn anything interesting from it? While they could learn plenty about the development of TPL, the history of Haven City or the gameplay interaction of a recurring weapon. I know some wikis also have a word limit here, but I'm not convinced that's a great measure on its own. Basically, the scenario I'm trying to avoid is if someone were to say "hey, look! My article is well written, misses no information, conforms to all the standards, and has nice pictures! It should totally be featured!", when it's just a few paragraphs long about an obscure object in Jak 3.
* This is a very minor gripe, but why link to the featured article nominations page in "See also" when it's already linked to in the top header? It's not like anyone's going to miss it by scrolling down. Looks pretty nice otherwise. Hopefully this rambly feedback was at least a little bit helpful, and I'm not too late to the party.-- 14:38, February 7, 2016 (UTC) Thanks for the review! I'll respond chronologically.
* I feel like having such an exclusive committee would harm a nomination's chances of attracting a high amount of reviews, comments, or votes from normal contributors. Tyranny of majority is negated by what community consensus is defined as: [[Template:xt|[[Template:xt| is only for examples of style and formatting. Do not use it in actual articles.]] is only for examples of style and formatting. Do not use it in actual articles.]] is only for examples of style and formatting. Do not use it in actual articles. As the nomination page describes, however, it is the job of the FA coordinators to determine whether or not there is consensus, that is, to determine if there is any merit to the current presented arguments for promotion. So in a sense, there basically already is a selection committee, just an unspoken one that wouldn't discourage community participation. I feel like this way normal contributors would feel like they have more of a voice and thus feel more motivated to participate, which (speaking from experience) will help the project stay afloat.
* That said, I did have something along these lines: [[Template:xt|[[Template:xt| is only for examples of style and formatting. Do not use it in actual articles.]] is only for examples of style and formatting. Do not use it in actual articles.]] is only for examples of style and formatting. Do not use it in actual articles.** This would probably explain my above point better, and I would definitely be happy to add it. It would make it to where FA coordinators wouldn't let a sub-par article pass nomination as well, which I agree is very important for FAs.
* I see what you mean with notability requirements, but the thing is, an article whose subject isn't particularly notable would have a very hard time meeting criteria 3a in particular, but also 1a. But, it would seem rather unfair to me to fail an article that does miraculously meet criteria 3a and 1a without meeting stringent notability policies. This is also where my above quote** would come into play, as a non-notable article also wouldn't withstand questions of intrigue or relevance except in really special circumstances, which, in my opinion, would make an FA. All in all, I would definitely say I agree with the sentiment that FAs should have much stricter standards in practice, but with superficially relaxed language. On a personal note, nice to see you around again. :) 19:54, February 7, 2016 (UTC) Ugh, yeah, I'm so sorry for being absent lately. ._. I know I've had a hard time getting back into uni and everything, but I've been away for waaay too much. I also need to get back to rewriting that Jak X page too. Alright, back to the topic at hand:
* I get the concern about the committee making it feel exclusive, or making participants feel disenfranchised. So I feel like a system similar to what you described - having FA coordinators which just give their stamp of approval, and don't restrict the review process to just themselves - probably works best, and I approve of adding that sentence in.
* My concern was an article that could pass 3a's requirement to not miss any important information if there was no more important information to add, and then the intrigue/relevance was up for dispute. Of course, this is what we have coordinators for anyway, so I guess it's fine. I think keeping the language mostly intact, and just being stricter about enforcing it, should work - my only worry was that from a certain interpretation, a GA would seem redundant and everything would be main page feature worthy, and if you follow a very loose interpretation, any page that doesn't have a maintenance template needed could be worthy. Of course, that'll never happen, and we have coordinators for that purpose. I'd just be careful to make the distinctions clearer when getting around to rewriting the GA page. So...yeah, I think it's totally cool with me as is. Also, I'd totally ask to be a coordinator involved in the review process of articles, but I'm not sure any of you would trust me to do that after the typoes I've made while rewriting some articles. : |-- 22:17, February 7, 2016 (UTC) No worries about the absence. We just started the TLF work yesterday, so you're not missing much. And sweet, I will add the sentence. As far as being a coordinator goes, you seem to understand the importance of having really high standards for FAs, so I wouldn't have a problem with it. Will update the pages here shortly. :) 03:54, February 8, 2016 (UTC)
|
![[RDF Data]](/fct/images/sw-rdf-blue.png)