I was going through the current list of featured article candidates and I removed the FAC tag on many articles whose tag was put more than 3 months ago. While doing so, I came across some articles which had some support votes but no action had been taken on them. Unfortunately, as the fac tag was more than 3 months, I had to remove the FAC tag. I think there should be a specific policy which states: ‘‘Any FAC with ‘so and so’ number of votes can be featured’’ Here ‘so and so’ can be a number jointly discussed by the community. One example of a good article with many supports for featuring but not getting featured as the FAC tag is more than 3 months old is: http://www.wikihow.com/Discussion:Do-Harry-Potter-Nails
I can easily count over 10 votes (I believe there are around 20 votes all saying yes). Such an article can be featured, right? I did not remove the FAC tag on this article as I was unsure what to do. The last what on this article was just a few days ago (30th June, 2012). What do you all think about it?
I really do agree! My “Do Makeup for Green Eyes” has a lot of potential, I think. And not a single person has voted no.
I really want it to be featured, so in this case, I completely agree with everything you’re saying, I have thinking the exact same things.
Yes, also maybe if the policy could state: ‘‘If there are ‘x’ or more votes supporting the FA, and the ‘yes to no ratio’ on the discussion page is 2:1 or more, than the article can be featured.’’ Here x = some number. That would be good, right?
Linus
5
I disagree that votes should be the only consideration. Like @Metsguy234
, it’s too easy to stuff the ballot box. There are only 365(+1) days a year and you can have only that many featured articles. Further, I’m an admin and I didn’t even know we had a candidate page! So only people who either care enough to check (thank you @Gaurang.prasad
) or who are lobbying for an article are likely to vote. It’s the same problem we have with NFDs: only people who really care about an article will vote.
Yes, I agree to you MetsGuy32, but don’t you think there is a need of a policy for this? There is no specific rule or policy which states which fac should be a featured article.
Yes @Sohmc
, But my question is - on what condition is it decided whether a fac should be featured or not? Shouldn’t we have a fixed set of rules? My suggestion of considering votes was just a suggestion and not the most precise solution.
It will be elaborated on I’m sure, but your answer lies in Step 6 of this: http://www.wikihow.com/Vote-on-Featured-Article-Candidates-on-wikiHow
I completely respect @Krystle
and @Flickety
, But if a featured article is one of the best works of the community, shouldn’t the votes of the community been given a greater importance? While cleaning up the page of the current articles tagged as fac, i have seen articles with votes supporting their featuring, but as the tag is more than 3 months old, I had to remove it. Also, look at the article I have linked to in the very first post of mine of this discussion. Look at the number of votes supporting it being featured? Okay, I agree that such articles might just be a minority. But if so many people of the community feel that the article deserves to be featured, shouldn’t it be given a go, even if it meant that the article needs more editing or improvement? Also, I am not against the current system. But I am “suggesting” the addition of some rules or guidelines on the basis of which articles are reviewed. I think some elaboration is needed on that step 6 that you suggested.
system
10
There is no fixed set of rules because the preparation and selection of FAs is a complex task that requires consideration of many different factors. Community discussion does get taken into consideration, among many other things. If community votes were the biggest factor, we would be featuring articles about Club Penguin and dating in middle school all the time
And there is also the concern that was raised, where some people have been known to go around talk pages and “fundraise” FAC votes. I’m not saying that’s what happened with http://www.wikihow.com/Discussion:Do-Harry-Potter-Nails
but it definitely does happen. In this particular case - It’s a great topic! But in my opinion it’s just not ready to be featured yet. When I look at the pictures I find myself squinting to see the details of the nails, the pictures are a little dark and blurry. If I was painting my nails I would want to see as much clear detail as possible. It has personal references, and needs some copyediting. I just think it needs a little more time to “ripen”. More than ever we are committed to quality; for an article about painting nails, I would want the article to be more like this: http://www.wikihow.com/Do-Facebook-Nails
Since the topics vary so much, there is no objective way to say “this article is officially good enough to be featured”. There is no checklist. Ultimately it’s a subjective decision, and I don’t always make perfect choices, but quality is a very important concern. That being said if there’s an article that has a lot of votes and hasn’t been featured and you feel should be featured, feel free to contact me directly about it!
@Krystle
Alright, that convinces me! Thanks to everyone who took part in this discussion. Hope you had an amazin vacation (or a wikiBreak), Gaurang
I disagree (in theory, not necessarily with the particular article). It’s really easy to either (a) make 5 wikiHow accounts and swing the vote (b) convince the mass of easily swayed wikiHow youngsters to post that they support featuring your article (i.e. basically everyone in this example article you gave). Votes should definitely be taken into account, but the fact of the matter is that most regular users on wikiHow just don’t vote for FAs. These votes are more popularity contests than representative samples of the site in many cases.
