Muppet Wiki talk:Quality article nominations

Updating

It has been a while since anybody updated the page or the part of the front page of MW and I saw the edits before the newest one was made by Danny in July last year so I am wondering if this can get more active and make it go how it was earlier last year. Webkinz Mania 19:35, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

It's not an updating issue since there've been no new quality articles since then. Feel free to nominate any you think are deserving, but mention it on Current Events too (I don't think anybody even saw your January nomination). Lately, there's actually been a raft of new Muppet stuff to keep up with, plus alterations to major categories and so on, so there's simply been less focus on bringing articles to quality level (and by now, we have a fairly impressive slate of quality articles). It's quite possible some deserving articles have just been overlooked. Don't forget to look at the items already in Category:Quality articles to see what the level is (and it can be higher or lower depending on the scope). I don't think anybody saw your Macy's Thanksgiving Day Parade nomination, but likewise, while it's a much better page, it's more than a bit disorganized and filled with blanks. Obviously some will take awhile to fill in and full ompleteness isn't a pre-requisite, but right now, just years with no content look messy (and could probably be parked on the talk page) and the lists of songs, characters, and appearances are awkward. A way to merge those three chronologically or in a way that's easier to digest would help. Basically, Quality Articles is just one of those areas where activity level varies according to interest and who's on the Wiki; whether a user really builds up a character page into a solid article or a group gradually coalesces a piece into a thorough examination of the subject as it pertains to the Muppets. -- Andrew Leal (talk) 21:51, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Okay. I'll talk about this in Current events. Webkinz Mania 22:23, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

I meant with any new nominations. The Macy's one is too old (two weeks is the longest a nomination can go without any votes; this stayed up merely because nobody saw it). You'll have to re-nominate it (and probably plan on working on organization or other potential issues) or consider other articles that fit the criteria. Take a good look at both the existing articles and the procedure section. Good luck! -- Andrew Leal (talk) 22:28, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Okay. I also nominated The Letter of the Day since that article also was doing well with some things. Webkinz Mania 22:37, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

First batch of Quality articles

It's been two weeks since the first batch of nominations, and some of the articles have passed. This is how it looks to me:

• Wonder Pig, Gorilla Suits, The Jimmy Dean Show and Rowlf the Dog all pass, and should be given Quality status.

• Joseph McCarthy didn't pass, and should be removed from the nominations.

• The Seven Deadly Sins has an opposing vote, so it stays on the slate for another week while we try to resolve the problems.

So I wanted to get an okay before we just move ahead and start making changes. Is everybody happy with how the process is going? -- Danny (talk) 11:43, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm happy with how the process is going. I think the articles that have “passed” are all great quality articles, and the other nominations up here are working themselves out justly. And any article that doesn't make the cut now can be worked on and re-nominated later on down the road. So I'm sure in the long run all the great articles will get their due respect. For the first spout of nominations I think this worked very well and the process will only get better the more we do it. -- Brad D. (talk) 21:13, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Looks pretty good so far. A good example of how solid parameters help the wiki :) --Cantus Rock 03:28, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, it looks to be working now that we've lowered the 5 supporting votes to 3. We barely made those numbers, but maybe only because the process is new. — Scott (talk) 03:31, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

McCarthyism

Regarding Danny's comment on Joseph McCarthy, we don't currently have any criteria on how Muppet-heavy an article be. If this is a factor in opposing votes, we may want to consider it. — Scott (talk) 17:39, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't think we need to make it a rule or anything. We're still exploring with this process. I'd like to see how it plays out for a while. -- Danny (talk) 19:26, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

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 Muppet Wiki 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)

That sounds good in theory. Let's try it! — Scott (talk) 04:36, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Only a suggestion --- but when somebody nominates a page, allow them to add their rationale as to why they think it qualifies. George B. (talk) 04:38, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, the procedure listed on the page actually says that you're supposed to add a rationale. Nobody's done it yet, though... -- Danny (talk) 18:01, 14 January 2007 (UTC)