Muppet Wiki talk:Quality article nominations

Procedure

This is why I thought we all needed some time to carefully read the contents of this and Muppet Wiki:Quality articles before going much further. Brad's original criteria on this page includes the following statement: "Users are encouraged to only have one active nomination at a time. Don't nominate a second article until your first nomination is resolved."

Scott just added four nominations to get things started. Are we, as a community, agreed on the procedure, or not? We only allow one nomination at a time for the Main Page Picture nominations, but there's no reason this procedure has to be exactly the same as that one. I'm all for brainstorming or listing possible candidates in talk pages or whatever, but right now, is everyone fully aware of and in agreement with the current standards? -- Andrew Leal (talk) 20:44, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

As discussed at Talk:Today on Muppet Wiki nominations, we're not doing this as a contest. The purpose of having quality articles is that all of our quality articles go in it. If we're only doing one at a time, what's the point? — Scott (talk) 20:49, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Not one at a time so much as one per person. Again, I don't argue against it, but right now the "rules" (set pretty much by Brad, and nobody else as yet) contradict the content. So we need to get this straight before proceeding much further. -- Andrew Leal (talk) 20:55, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

The "rule" of one nomination per person at a time I took from Wikipedia's feature article nominations guidelines. I don't think it should be as much a rule as a suggestion. Having less active nominations allows people to focus on the current nominations better and it prevents people from flooding the list with every article they like. But I think as long as we don't go overboard we can allow more, especially to get things started. Scott's nominations are fine, in my opinion, but we just need to make sure that people take nominations seriously and don't just go nomination crazy. -- Brad D. (talk) 21:29, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

I think it's generally a good rule. Pretty much everything you said. Keeps people focused on trying to consider the current nominations and they don't spend too much time adding new stuff. And then once all that's sorted out, then more nominations can be made. George B. (talk) 04:44, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't see the difference in nominating one at a time versus five. If someone supports an article they can also oppose another at the same time. — Scott (talk) 04:14, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

One thing that needs to get fleshed out is the "awarding" part. This is my suggestion, which is totally open for change:

A decision is made two weeks from the day that an article is nominated.

After two weeks, an article with at least 5 supporting votes and no opposing votes gets Quality status.

An article with 3-4 supporting votes remains on the list for another two weeks. If it can't get five supporting votes by the end of four weeks, it's removed from nominations.

An article with 1-2 supporting votes after two weeks is removed from nominations. (This is to clear out pages that only a couple people like.)

A person who casts an opposing vote have to explain what they think is the problem with the nominated article. There are two ways to deal with an opposing vote. If the article is improved enough to satisfy the person who cast the opposing vote, then it can be removed. If the opposing vote is based on unrealistic or unreasonable criteria, then three supporters can vote to "overturn" the veto. An article with an opposing vote can't be given Quality status until one of those conditions is met.

So there you go: Probably too complicated, but still kinda fun. What do you think? -- Danny (talk) 15:17, 13 January 2007 (UTC)