| abstract
| - Any article may be nominated at any time; however, each new nomination should be accompanied by a rationale as to why the nominator thinks the article is a suitable candidate for featuring. It doesn't have to be a particularly lengthy explanation, but it should consist of wholly substantive reasons (i.e. the quality of the article), not superficial ones (e.g. "ohmagerd Dave is so cool!"). That's not to say we don't like having little thematic nods or suchlike, just that they shouldn't be anything other than fun asides to the nomination. Please note that while all users may participate in discussions, only registered users may nominate articles. In addition, nominating is a privilege, which can be revoked for any user who consistently nominates articles that are clearly not up to standard. There is also no hard limit on how many articles any one user may nominate in a given timespan, but obviously this is subject to common sense. If one person nominates five articles in a month, it raises questions about how much thought is really going into their nominations. To nominate an article, simply create a new third-level heading in the Nominations section below, using a link to the article in question as the heading title. Use the existing entries as a guide if you aren't sure what to do. Below that should be the opening rationale for the nomination, which must be signed by the nominator (in accordance with the wiki's signature policy). Once a nomination has been made, all users are invited to discuss it. This is not a straight vote per se; rather, users should express further rationales (again, no length requirement, only substance) either for or against the article. Naturally, this may be subject to change as the article becomes cleaned up, outdated, or any such shift – this can provide fresh discussion. To make it clear what view is being expressed at a glance, such discussion should be in the form of bullet points prefixed with either "Support", "Oppose" or, if simply commenting on the article without expressing a view specifically about suitability for featuring, "Comment". If you change your opinion on a nominated article, do not remove your old comments. Instead, strike them out (like this) and add your new comment at the bottom of the discussion. Every two months, the administrative staff will take into account the various arguments for each article, and select the one they think has both good quality and ample support. There is no "clean slate" with each FA update – existing nominations remain with their discussion intact until such a time as they are either selected or, for whatever reason, removed. The user who initially nominates a given article is permitted to request a withdrawal; however, a rationale must be provided for this, too, and the decision of whether to comply rests with the staff. Here are some things to consider when nominating and discussing articles:
* Is the article detailed and easily comprehensible?
* Does the article have any red links, or links to redirects or disambiguation pages? If so, can they be fixed?
* Does the article have a good number of images? Enough to be illustrative, but not too many.
* Does the article have a good amount of MSPA links, without overloading on them?
* Does the article, generally speaking, look tidy? If the article has any problems with the above criteria, please either refrain from nominating it, or make improvements to bring the quality up to a better standard – obvious flaws are just opposition bait when it comes to the discussion! And above all, remember that the Featured Article is intended to represent the best this wiki has to offer, not just a popularity contest. Ultimately, though, be bold! If you genuinely think an article is good, nominate it! We'd rather have a handful of nominations that aren't definitely perfect than too few nominations. As long as a nomination isn't completely off the mark, it will highlight an article that could easily become suitable with a little work!
|
![[RDF Data]](/fct/images/sw-rdf-blue.png)