User:GermanJoe/Featured articles brainstorming

The following list is only intended to be a loose collection of ideas, concerns and suggestions and not a formal, regulated RfC (this could be done later for some points to gather more input). Some of those points have been rejected in the past or may not be practicable for various reasons - however, they can still serve as starting point for adjustments or better ideas for the same concern. Some points are already mentioned in a guideline, but added for clarification or further discussion. Most points relate to the FA-nomination, but some also touch concerns of FAR or other processes.


 * Please comment under "Comments" (duh).
 * Feel free to add own suggestions to the lists (please sign) or add a new section, if you want to discuss a different aspect. GermanJoe (talk) 12:45, 9 October 2013 (UTC)


 * 1) Minimum for all nominations is 3-4 weeks
 * 2) Regular duration is up to 4-6 weeks
 * 3) Nominations can be archived early
 * 4) *If the nominator didn't follow all steps to prepare and start a FA-nomination (f.e. not being a main editor of the article or starting a second out-of-process nomination)
 * 5) *If atleast 1 reviewer (coordinator discretion) or the nominator asks to withdraw the nomination (clarification of current guideline)
 * 6) Nominations can be prolonged, if, after 6 weeks, open issues are likely to be resolved soon (coordinator discretion).

Advantages: Clear, transparent handling. Reduction of complaints about unfair treatment.


 * 1) Limit the number of "active" nominations (f.e. to a maximum of 40 or 50 at any given time)
 * 2) New nominations exceeding the maximum number would be put in an "inactive new nominations" queue and are moved to "active" as soon as an active FAC-spot becomes available. (A simple approach would be to split the nomination page in 3 instead of 2 sections, with a "new nominations" queue on top and a bot automatically filling open "active" slots with waiting entries from "new nominations" (FIFO, oldest "new nominations" first))
 * 3) Inactive new nominations will be visible, but should not be reviewed or voted (see "inactive")

Advantages: Focussing of reviewer ressources on less articles at once. Maybe a better chance for atypical and fringe topic articles to gather more reviews.


 * 1) Should GA-status be required to nominate an article for FA?
 * 2) Should atleast one PR (no matter, how successful) be required to nominate an article for FA?
 * 3) If an article has undergone a thorough A-class review, should those results be taken into account during the FA-nomination? If yes, how?
 * 4) Should technical checks (complete and thorough image, source or spot checks) from a previous review (PR, GA, A-class) be taken into account?

Advantages: A matter of opinion, but several articles are nominated underprepared and would have benefitted from more collaboration with other editors. A required preliminary step may reduce such cases. Thorough A-class reviews overlap with several FA-criteria, it seems redundant to check the same (or almost the same) criteria twice (assuming the A-class review has been closed only a few days or weeks ago).


 * FAC: Disputes outside the written guidelines (f.e. about the interpretation of certain policies, the reliability of unusual sources, preferences in structure, style and layout, template usage...) are not actionable reasons to oppose a FA-nomination. It is recommended to use the appropriate noticeboards for dispute resolution or policy talkpages for clarification.
 * FAR: Nominations based on disputes outside the written guidelines (see above) are discouraged and may be speedily closed (coordinator discretion). It is recommended to use the appropriate noticeboards for dispute resolution or policy talkpages for clarification.

Advantages: Avoid wasting limited reviewer ressources and focus on actionable, clear concerns, which are solvable within the timeline of a nomination. In all likelihood a general disagreement about a perceived basic article issue outside our guidelines cannot be solved via a FA-nomination or -review.


 * 1) "Close paraphrasing" should be a separate criterion (1f?) (even if it's not always checked due to ressource limitations). It should be clear, that an article with verified, significant paraphrasing problems auto-fails the FA-criteria.
 * 2) Add to Criterion 3 Media: "Image Copyright" should be amended with "The copyright status of all media must be supported by appropriate source and author information."
 * 3) Add to Criterion 3 Media: "Media conveying factual information (f.e. maps, timelines, statistics, ...) need source information to meet WP:V."

Advantages: Avoid possible misunderstandings and close gaps in dated criteria compared to actual handling.


 * 1) Change introduction for new nominations to something less trivial, more intriguing (suggested by Jimfbleak on FAC-talk)
 * 2) Encourage nominators to briefly note milestones of their article (previous GAs, PRs, A-class) and to mention earlier problems and how they have been solved (makes it easier to check progress)
 * 3) Update and clarify template:FAC-instructions:
 * Instructions should be sorted in chronological order (preparation -> restrictions on nominations -> nomination -> reviewing -> evaluating nomination status -> closure).
 * Important points need to be marked somehow
 * Usage of 2-3 subheaders would probably be useful.


 * 1) Notifications: Make sure, all FAC and FAR nominations are notified to the top 3 article contributors and all interested projects (listed per article talkpage). This is some extra work for the nominators, but needs to be a requirement for all nominations.
 * 2) Projects: Make sure, all projects (atleast the active and/or bigger ones) have an active system of article alerts to get additional automatic FAC/FAR notifications (technical help needed: how to measure project activity to get a somewhat representative list of active projects?)
 * 3) Projects: Invite all active and semi-active projects to contribute to FAC- and FAR-reviews (info message on project talkpage: what is a featured article?, how does it work?, why is help needed?, a few hints for beginners)
 * 4) Signpost: We already have weekly FA-overviews, let's have a news article about the FA-process itself. The article should contain diverse views from interviewed coordinators, reviewers and nominators (both regulars and rookies) to offer a summary of the current state of "Featured Article" processes.

Advantages: Should be obvious, try to raise more awareness and hopefully more contributions to the processes.


 * 1) If deemed necessary by a majority: start a (constructive) discussion and RfC about possible coordinator elections and details of the future role of coordinators.
 * 2) Merge FAC- and FAR-talk page (redirect one or both), those processes are similar enough to allow a shared talkpage for better communication.
 * 3) Write down all details of administrative "management" activities for closure or promotion of FACs or for keeps and demotes of FARs (incl. bot tasks).
 * 4) Ask for a few volunteers to assist the coordinators with simple administrative tasks and cleanup.
 * 5) Establish a place for complaints, suggestions, longer discussions and general brainstorming separate from the daily FA-talk.
 * This place may be best shared by all FA-related processes FAC, FAR and TFA (possibly others like FLC and FPC aswell).

Advantages: Improve communication between all FA-related processes, gather ideas and suggestions, aswell as possible complaints and concerns.

Anything else, that is not fitting in one of the above sections, aswell as more detailed or complex discussions.