Wikipedia:Good article nominations/New Proposals for GAN, Part I

Proposal 1: Improve the instructions

 * Proposed by: North8000 (talk) 20:35, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Proposal: This goal is much much simpler to accomplish that we have been making it out to be. It is a complex and confusing process to become a GA reviewer.  Those who already know it do not generally understand / acknowledge this and so the relatively easy fixes have not been implemented. Proposal: Improve the instructions in a few key areas, plus create a short truly helpful help page, and the problem will be solved.
 * Discussion: Please discuss this proposal on its appropriate section of the talk page.

 Approved.

Proposal 2: Point System

 * Proposed by:
 * Proposal: Instead of only allowing older nominations to "count" for backlog drives, why not make older articles worth a given amount of points (something like 5), somewhat old/new articles worth 3 points, and newer ones 1 point, the total points determine the barnstar.
 * Discussion: Please discuss this proposal on its appropriate section of the talk page.

Proposal 3: Tabs

 * Proposed by:
 * Proposal: Streamline project organization by using tabs, like the tab system used at WikiProject Military history.
 * Discussion: Please discuss this proposal on its appropriate section of the talk page.

 Approved.

Proposal 4: Recruitment drive

 * Proposed by:
 * Proposal: Like every process here we need new reviewers to replace the ones that retire or move on. Speaking from my first few experiences it can be a daunting task taking on your first few reviews. However, once you get into it you find that it is not really that hard and it can be a rewarding experience. Therefore I propose that we have a drive specifically focused on recruiting new GA reviewers. We can advertise in the signpost or at Wikiprojects of subject areas perennially backed up (thinking sports) or individually select editors that submit Good Articles, but are yet to review any. It has the added bonus of allowing us to encourage, mentor and provide advice so that they do not make some of the mistakes that other new reviewers do. Not sure on exact details at this stage, but we could have some experienced nominators volunteer for there articles to be reviewed by these new users (under the watchful eye of a mentor) so everyone knows what to expect and hopefully there won't be any bityness. AIR corn (talk) 05:44, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Discussion: Please discuss this proposal on its appropriate section of the talk page.

Proposal 5: Pass/Fail/On Hold/Second Opinion Buttons

 * Proposed by:
 * Proposal: I don't know if it is possible, but to help make the reviewing process even easier, currently, after a user begins a reviewer, the template on the article talk page changes to say that additional comments are welcome. Now, my proposal is that below that paragraph we add four buttons that can change the template to pass/fail/etc rather then having to go to the nominations page and copy the proper template code. When the reviewer pushes one of the buttons, it leads too the edit page and already puts the proper template in, the reviewer just has to fill in the proper info and deleted the old template.
 * Discussion: Please discuss this proposal on its appropriate section of the talk page.

 Approved.

Proposal 6: Make a recommendation to have some indication of an involved editor before nominating

 * Proposed by: North8000 (talk) 13:16, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Proposal: Make a recommendation (not a requirement) to, before nominating, make sure that there is at least some indication that are one or more interested editors who will be involved during the review process. (I say just "some indication" because editors are volunteers, and seldom are going to want to firmly obligate themselves.)     Except in the rare cases where the article needs zero changes to pass, an article without an involved editor (to respond to reviewer's comments) is certain to fail.  So 95% of articles with no involved editor will fail; they are a big waste of reviewer time and mental energy which could be spent reviewing articles that have a chance and reducing  the backlog.
 * Discussion: Please discuss this proposal on its appropriate section of the talk page.

 Approved.

Proposal 7: Adopt a new FAC-like, multi-reviewer, section-separated, queued format with waiting list

 * Proposed by:
 * Proposal: The Spanish Wikipedia has the next format: Their FAC process, in contrast with our current one, has these differences: Nominations are listed in a page, which is seperated by topic, just like we do at GAN. They transclude a maximum number of nomination pages per topic, and put the rest of the nominations in a separate page, called the waiting list. There, several users review the articles and reach a desicion to promote or to fail. After a candidate is failed or promoted, its transclusion is closed and removed from the list, and the next article in the waiting list is added at the top of the correspondent section. As we have a lot more articles than FAC or FLC awaiting, we can set up a timing for each nomination like FPC (to avoid getting ourselves backlogged to death), like 7 days (with exceptions for long articles, which may stay for longer).
 * Discussion: Please discuss this proposal on its appropriate section of the talk page.

Proposal 8: Nomination Limit

 * Proposed by:
 * Proposal: In order to cut down the backlog and allow for a more timely review of articles on the waiting list, I propose limiting a user to having no more than 10 nominations on the waiting list at any time. There is no reason I can think of as to why someone would need more than 10 nominations at once, so it is hard to imagine many being disadvantaged by this rule. This rule would be mainly aimed at preventing another backlog like we see in the video games list, where one nominator dominates the list with unreviewed nominations. Also, pleae don't interpret this as an attack on any nominator, it is intended solely to prevent another huge backlog from occuring. Thoughts?  ★ ★ RetroLord★ ★  11:57, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Discussion: Please discuss this proposal on its appropriate section of the talk page.

Proposal 10: Revive Collaboration Center

 * Proposed by: Tea with toast   (話)
 * Proposal: Try to revive the defunct WikiProject Good Article Collaboration Center (WP:GACC) in hopes of creating better quality nominations and reducing the number nominated articles that have multiple problems (but not meeting quick fail criteria) that commonly contribute to the backlog. Methods to revive the project would include recruiting new member similar to Proposal 4. Additionally, we would add a sentence to the "How to nominate an article" section notifying users to first nominate their article at WP:GACC if they know their article has shortcomings and may not meet GA criteria (rather than nominating the article with the hope that the reviewer or someone else will do all the fixes needed).
 * Discussion: Please discuss this proposal on its appropriate section of the talk page.

Proposal 11: Adopt "quid pro quo"

 * Proposed by: Redtigerxyz  Talk
 * Proposal: Adopt quid pro quo (QPQ) system like Did you know. "Reviewing another editor's nomination is part of the nomination process. This makes it more likely that all nominations are reviewed in a timely manner. You may add your nomination before you undertake a review, but before it is approved, please review another editor's nomination and indicate at your nomination which you have reviewed, and provide a link to the reviewed nomination. New nominators (those with fewer than five/ten? GAs) are exempt from this review requirement." (modified DYK a little).
 * Discussion: Please discuss this proposal on its appropriate section of the talk page.