Memory Alpha

Changes: Memory Alpha talk:Featured article nominations

edit this page

Back to page

(On the Future of Featured Articles)
(On the Future of Featured Articles: my suggestion)
Line 137: Line 137:
:I, too, think that the number of featured articles ist becoming too high, and the whole process (included featured nominations, feature removal nominations and probably also the "Article of the week" feature) needs to be discussed. However, I don't think that we need another class of articles "better than featured" - first, "featured articles" right now are defined as "MA's best works", and second, it would be very hard, if not impossible, to determine if an article really is "100% complete and perfect".
:I, too, think that the number of featured articles ist becoming too high, and the whole process (included featured nominations, feature removal nominations and probably also the "Article of the week" feature) needs to be discussed. However, I don't think that we need another class of articles "better than featured" - first, "featured articles" right now are defined as "MA's best works", and second, it would be very hard, if not impossible, to determine if an article really is "100% complete and perfect".
:I agree with some of the suggestions made above and on other related discussion pages, and will suggest some more later. -- [[User:Cid Highwind|Cid Highwind]] 14:21, 6 Sep 2005 (UTC)
:I agree with some of the suggestions made above and on other related discussion pages, and will suggest some more later. -- [[User:Cid Highwind|Cid Highwind]] 14:21, 6 Sep 2005 (UTC)
:My suggestion: [[User:Cid Highwind/Featured article procedure]] -- [[User:Cid Highwind|Cid Highwind]] 21:55, 8 Sep 2005 (UTC)

Revision as of 21:55, September 8, 2005

Limit to number of self-nominations

IN the Force of Nature discussion, an archivist has pointed out that a number of the episode pages (and other pages too) are featured, but with serious problems like poor grammar, lack of any correctly placed background information, and the like.

It seems to be the same 5 or 10 users that continuously discuss featured status and work on the articles -- could the quality of those being chosen be that we are simply seeing the same few users spotlighting their own work, and having the few regular featured article contributors rate it.

Perhaps there should be a limit to self nomination -- to give our dozens of other archivists a chance to actually have some of their work featured here, rather that the regular crew.

Should there be a requirement that another user or group of users should have worked on an article within a certain amount of time of a self-nomination? Or perhaps increase the number of votes needed to make an article featured, in order to find a way to give more users a voice in the discussion? -- Captain Mike K. Barteltalk 14:34, 13 Jul 2005 (UTC)

I'm wary of placing any sort of restrictions on "self-nomination" or creating some sort of scale to judge how many contributors need to work on an article before it can be featured... that seems like excessive bureaucracy and against the spirit of Memory Alpha. Everything we have is equally owned by all contributors. Furthermore, there is no one keeping the users outside any perceived group from voting or nominating their own work. That said, I do think we need to encourage more user voting for not only featureds, but deletions and other procedures which require a vote... it does seem as if there is only a small number of users voting on these pages. Perhaps requiring 2-3 votes to make a featured article would help, but we also need to find a way to pull in other contributors who perhaps have not taken part in the voting process yet. -- SmokeDetector47 // talk 02:07, 14 Jul 2005 (UTC)

"'s work..."

(copied from: Category talk:Memory Alpha featured articles; inserted here as a subdiscussion of the Self-nomination discussion) -- Cid Highwind

"We believe it to be one of the best examples of the Memory Alpha community's work."

I read this, curiously, on our Featured Article boiler plate. It's seemed to me, that maybe 8 times out of 10, when an article is nominated, it's a self nomination, and they are the main contributor to that article. Self nominations are fine, that's not my problem; but I think we should have a place, maybe even on the main page, where we list maybe three articles that "could" be featured articles, and encourage everyone in our community to work on them. Then when we think their done, we can put'm up to a final vote, et. Anyone on my wave length? (PS: If this isn't in the right talk page, which I'm not entirely sure it is, higher-up feel free to move it) - AJHalliwell 07:48, 15 Jul 2005 (UTC)

That sounds like a great idea! There are loads of articles which are good, but need some improvements before they become featured, for example Data and Lwaxana Troi. zsingaya 08:55, 15 Jul 2005 (UTC)
This has been suggested before on Ten Forward, as some sort of "peer review". This could be a good idea (maybe even make that step mandatory to avoid the problems outlined above), but it needs to be specified further: How do we choose these pages (suggestion/vote, I guess, maybe with some limits put in place)? How do we determine if a page has been reviewed "enough"? Any ideas? -- Cid Highwind 09:05, 15 Jul 2005 (UTC)
We could have a "counter" system, like on the Admin nominations page, where there's a number supporting, against and neutral for each article suggested. Probably 5 supports without an against would be adequate. Any opposed comments would need to be resolved before it became featured, as in the Guinan talk page. zsingaya 09:10, 15 Jul 2005 (UTC)
But that would be the step of actually nominating an article for featured status, just as we have it right now, wouldn't it? If I understand AJHalliwell correctly, the "peer review" would be a step before that:
  1. Article gets nominated for "peer review" (How?)
  2. Community chooses, so that X articles are up for peer review at any time (How?)
  3. Community decides if peer review was successful (How?)
  4. If it was, article gets nominated for featured status
  5. Community decides if article deserves featured status
Eventually, steps 3-5 could be combined by automatically nominating for featured after article has been under review for some time (1 week? more? less?). -- Cid Highwind 09:17, 15 Jul 2005 (UTC)

Glad people are into the idea; we could have a vote for say, 3-5 articles that "could" be featured articles (like we have a bar of Unwritten topics on the main page) Then for a week, those are shown, and edited, and upgraded, and when it's felt it has met Featured Article qualifications, we'd put it on the Featured article nominations page (in case anyone still has problems with it). Then if no problems, featured. We could have a suggestion page to select the 3-5 articles (like there is for Article of the Week, only encourage voting on it) Personally, it seems like all the main characters could be featured, with how much info there is on them, they just haven't been finished and polished and shined. - AJHalliwell 21:45, 15 Jul 2005 (UTC)

Sort of pages being nominated

Does anyone else notice we seem to be nominating and featuring a unproportionally large ammounts of battles? Not that that is a bad thing, but I do hope more other topics are going to get nominated soon. -- Redge 21:40, 26 Jun 2004 (CEST)

Discussion on policy moved to Memory Alpha talk:Featured article nomination policy.

It's been more than seven days for all of the "nominations w/o objections" - shouldn't they be added to the Featured Articles? -- 17:38, 7 Jul 2004 (CEST)

I see. Complaint withdrawn. -- 02:12, 10 Jul 2004 (CEST)

Who makes pages "featured"?

This is more of a question of curiosity than a complaint, but I just noticed that both Hirogen and USS Enterprise (NCC-1701-D) were given "featured"-status with only 2 votes, or less. That is hardly a consensus, in my mind. Is it the admins job to decide and "hand out the medals" or can any standard member do it if they feel/decide that its achieved the requirements? To me, that is what seems to have just happened. --Gvsualan 22:54, 24 Jan 2005 (CET)

I think a nomination simply has to be seconded without objection with in seven days. If objected it is given ten days to reach consensus, if it does not it is rejected. Tyrant 23:08, 24 Jan 2005 (CET)Tyrant
Uh, I still think it should be the responsibility of the admins though. Anyway, Hirogen appears to not have even been proofread yet. All 44 of the "VGR"'s should be "VOY"'s and the are a number of typographical and grammarical errors in it. I think, at minimum, a article should pass those requirements before they pass nomination. --Gvsualan 23:18, 24 Jan 2005 (CET)

BlueMars moved them, he has done so in the past without objection. Just check the Memory Alpha:Nominations for featured articles history. I don't think this is something he needed the admin to hold his hand for, the requiremints are straightforward. See: Memory Alpha:Featured article nomination policy If you had a problem you should have been more proactive in the voting process. Tyrant 23:24, 24 Jan 2005 (CET)Tyrant

Tyrant is right. At the moment, a nomination only has to be seconded (=one supporting vote, no objections). If, after 7 days, this is the case, any user may move the suggested article. If you think that another procedure would be more appropriate, feel free to suggest it on the relevant talk page - but keep in mind that we are a small community and that "administrator acceptance" isn't really necessary in all cases... -- Cid Highwind 00:32, 2005 Jan 25 (CET)

shameless self-promotion

Would it be considered crass and shameless self-promotive for someone (coughmecough) to nominmate their own articles for "Featured Article" status? | THOR 05:52, 5 Feb 2005 (CET)

Not really. It's been done several times in the past... as long as everyone else agrees it's worthy of featured status, there's no problem. -- SmokeDetector47 06:02, 2005 Feb 5 (CET)
Before I do such a thing though; I'm trying to find some criterium for what qualifies as a featured article. I have written what I consider to be a (very) few pretty good articles; but none of them are paticularly important or infamous, just well-written with lots of good information on, albeit, limited subjects. Could I get/find some general 'rules of thumb' regarding what constitutes Featured Article material? | THOR 06:17, 5 Feb 2005 (CET)
You may want to start here, although a featured article doesn't necessarily need to incorporate all of the things mentioned there in abundance. Personally, my guidelines for approving or suggesting a Featured Article require it to be a complete or nearly-complete account of everything knowable, relevant, and/or important about a topic. The article should also be more than a few sentences long, conform to style, and be reasonably well proofread. This applies to obscure topics too... if the article is complete, well-written, with good info, it's definitely worth consideration. I would suggest browsing through some of the accepted articles, especially on topics with which you're familiar, to get a feel for what a featured article is about. Even if this isn't helpful, it really can't hurt to simply suggest the article anyway... if it isn't featured material, the worst that can happen is for it to be rejected; even so, you'll get helpful feedback about why it was rejected so the article can be improved and submitted again. -- SmokeDetector47 06:58, 2005 Feb 5 (CET)

featured article candidacy

In the actual voting page, BlueMars makes note on the nomination of Telek R'Mor that while he supports the article, he is unsure as to whether "guest characters should or can be featured at all." I don't understand why they wouldn't be able to, there is no criterium for a Featured Article that dictates that it has to be about an important or paticularly lengthy subject.

I brought up a very similar discussion when I was contemplating self-nomination for an article or two of mine; immediately above this one. Basically from the input I've received, and what little SOP I can find on the subject; it seems that the quality of the article, not the subject of the article that should dictate whether or not it constitutes Featured Article material. | THOR 18:04, 13 Feb 2005 (GMT)

Galaxy class, featured article or not?

There seems to be some controversy about this article...

I suggested this article as a "featured article removal candidate". According to the new policy regarding the FA-category, I removed the template {{featured}}. On the same day, this was supported by SmokeDetector47. This should have started a discussion period of seven days. (Memory Alpha:Featured article removal candidates).
Ottens prematurely suggests the article as a FA-candidate again, although its removal is still being discussed. (Memory Alpha:Nominations for featured articles).
The first possible date for the removal discussion to end, either way. At this point, consensus was to remove.
Balok supports the suggestion for FA.
BlueMars adds the {{featured}} template to the article and removes the discussion. The removal discussion goes unnoticed.

Obviously, the suggestion and removal procedure has to be changed to help avoid these errors in the future. I will try to work something out tomorrow. However, the article shouldn't have been resuggested while its removal was still under discussion. I think it would be best to remove the featured status now (consensus of 02-06), then have another discussion about its resuggestion. This would be a very clean approach. Any objections? -- Cid Highwind 17:04, 21 Mar 2005 (EST)

My apoligies I resuggested it for featured again, I wasn't aware it's removal from FA-status was still under discussion at the time. No objections regarding your suggested policy. Ottens 04:05, 23 Mar 2005 (EST)
No problem, I guess this had to happen without any form of notice on the article. I created the additional template {{featuredremoval}}, so it probably won't happen again. If there are no further objections by anyone else, I will clear this up as suggested above tomorrow. -- Cid Highwind 14:31, 23 Mar 2005 (EST)
Done. -- Cid Highwind 04:49, 24 Mar 2005 (EST)
Sorry I didn't post on this sooner... I had a response back on the 21st but was unable to post it due to the cookie problem. I think {{featuredremoval}} is definitely a good idea, but the {{featured}} tag should also be left in place during the discussion, for consistency's sake. My problem with the old procedure is that it seemed like the article was instantly removed from featured status and stayed that way unless someone opposed the removal. I also object to removing and renominating the Galaxy class article; I think we can grandfather it in. Even though it was renominated before the appropriate time, there was still no objection or even discussion about the nomination, leading me to believe that there is no problem with the article as-is. Seems to be a waste of time to go through the whole song and dance once again. -- SmokeDetector47 // talk 18:51, 24 Mar 2005 (EST)

The {{featuredremoval}} seems a good step to make readers of an article aware of it status being discussed. But I think this still leaves the problem what if {{featuredremoval}} is removed prematurely or for that matter the otherway around when its discussion status is in concensus to remove, even past its seven or ten days, but the {{featured}} is still in place. What has priority, concensus or its already featured status ? In my opinion its consensus to remove, that is why I removed Galaxy Class from featured articles the second time. The concensus to remove was there a month or so old. -- Q 13:05, 25 Mar 2005 (EST)


Leonard H. McCoy -- Nobody to second it? -- Dmsdbo 14:43, 4 May 2005 (UTC)

Where to place msg:featured

Redge, I think this message should be placed on the article page itself (just like all other messages), not that article's talk page. Otherwise a good idea to 'clean up' a bit, thanks. :) -- Cid Highwind 12:25, 30 Jun 2004 (CEST)

If you were going to place it on the page itself, I advice on the bottom of the page, so that it is not annoying for the readers. That's why placing it on the Talk page might be a good idea? Ottens 12:44, 30 Jun 2004 (CEST)
Virtually all important messages are placed on the top of the article page - a small two-line note in a box can't be that annoying, can it? Placing it on the talk page doesn't make much sense in my opinion - all these messages are meant to inform casual readers about the status of that article, while the idea of a talk page is to discuss the article in detail (= for interested contributors) - those two functions don't mix that well... -- Cid Highwind 12:52, 30 Jun 2004 (CEST)
Yes, but I just said I would rather place it on the bottom of the article, as it only informs you that it's a Featured Article, and doesn't add anything useful to the content itself. Ottens 13:05, 30 Jun 2004 (CEST)

I moved this discussion from my talk page to 10F, so everyone can give their thoughts. I'll just leave the messages as they are now untill we have rached a conclusion here.

I think the Talk page would be better suited. You don't want to interupt readers with info that isn't relevant to the article itself. Alternatively, bottom of page will do as well. -- Redge 13:30, 30 Jun 2004 (CEST)

I think that the talk page is the best place. It doesn't clutter up the main article itself, but it still keeps the information available. After all, the list of featured articles itself is linked to from the main page... -- Dan Carlson 15:27, 30 Jun 2004 (CEST)
I'd rather have it on the actual page, top or bottom, than the Talk page. The article's status should have attention called to it in som way, and putting a notice on a different page doesn't really do that. --Steve 20:06, 30 Jun 2004 (CEST)
Well, let's talk about the purpose of that message... what is the target audience (so to speak) of it? If it is the group of Readers/Users it has to be placed on the page itself - I guess those guys rarely read talk pages. If it is the group of Contributors/Editors, it doesn't have to be the article page, but in that case, the message might be completely unnecessary - if I have something to contribute to an article, I'm not really interested in its status. Summary: Use it on the article page, or don't use it at all :) -- Cid Highwind 16:55, 1 Jul 2004 (CEST)
I think he bottom of the article page, or the top of the talk page are the two most sensible choices, listed in the order i prefer them. we don't need much more disruption than this will offer--Captain Mike K. Bartel

Bottom it is then? -- Redge 20:49, 21 Jul 2004 (CEST)

Archived. -- Redge 19:07, 5 Aug 2004 (CEST)

Length/Actor articles

Two questions: How long do articles have to be to qualify as a potential featured article? And can articles on actors be nominated? --From Andoria with Love 22:30, 18 Aug 2005 (UTC)

  • Those are both good questions. As for length, I felt like it was a slap in the face to people who go into such painstaking detail (namely Defiant and Shran) on their summaries when Paradise was featured with two votes, one of which came from Toby (no offense). --Schrei 01:18, 30 Aug 2005 (UTC)
    • In all honesty, I don't like reading episode pages that are nominated for featured status, hence why I don't vote on them. Articles on people and things I enjoy reading and making critiques on. Regardless, I think we are far too lenient on our voting here, and wish it would be more stringent, but I dont think that will ever happen.
    • As far as length goes, if the article is that short, then it probably doesnt have that much information to it anyway and really shouldnt be considered, in my opinion. Sometimes I think people here think that every article made on this site has the potential to be featured, and unless the character is featured in more than half an episode or a piece of technology has more than 1 minute of camera time, I don't see that happening.
    • As for performers pages up for featured, I don't see why not -- and personally I am interested in what Shran has in mind. In all honestly, I too would think that for an actor page to be considered it would have to be absolutely mindblowing. --Alan del Beccio 02:05, 30 Aug 2005 (UTC)
    • "Mind-blowing?!" Oh, wow... talk about putting one under pressure, lol! I'm almost afraid to nominate any of them now. Not that I have doubt in the ability of this community to write a mind-blowing actor or actress article, mind you. ;) But should I place any potential nominees here first for discussion, or just go ahead and nominate them? --From Andoria with Love 04:52, 6 Sep 2005 (UTC)
      • This place needs a peer review thing like wikipedia. 1985 04:54, 6 Sep 2005 (UTC)
      • While we're at it, how bout some formal criteria for being featured 1985 04:55, 6 Sep 2005 (UTC)
    • I'm gonna go ahead and nominate one now. *crosses fingers* :) --From Andoria with Love 07:58, 6 Sep 2005 (UTC)

On the Future of Featured Articles

As I'm reading some users' comments on featured article nominations, I realized I am not alone in the following concern. In my opinion, the number of featured articles is becoming to high. Especially with users writing up excellent episode summeries lately, in number of FA is increasing now faster than ever. (Memory Alpha is becoming too good.) Lately, it seems as if an article receiving "featured" status is merely the last step in the progress of writing an article.

Still, though, many pages that are "featured" are not 100% complete. That is not required, of course, but it appears there are levels of featured articles: those that are "good" and those that are "excellent". For example, the Intrepid class page is a good article, while the Constitution class page is arguably better, featuring far more extended information and a detailed "Background information" section.

Thus, I suggest the following option: keep the "Featured Articles" as it is, and create a category of articles only for those that are 100% complete. The standard for these would be much higher than that of normal FA -- such articles would have to be perfect and complete in every sense. Ottens 11:26, 6 Sep 2005 (UTC)

I, too, think that the number of featured articles ist becoming too high, and the whole process (included featured nominations, feature removal nominations and probably also the "Article of the week" feature) needs to be discussed. However, I don't think that we need another class of articles "better than featured" - first, "featured articles" right now are defined as "MA's best works", and second, it would be very hard, if not impossible, to determine if an article really is "100% complete and perfect".
I agree with some of the suggestions made above and on other related discussion pages, and will suggest some more later. -- Cid Highwind 14:21, 6 Sep 2005 (UTC)
My suggestion: User:Cid Highwind/Featured article procedure -- Cid Highwind 21:55, 8 Sep 2005 (UTC)

Around Wikia's network

Random Wiki