Difference between revisions of "Category talk:Featured articles"
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Apostrophe (talk | contribs) |
m |
||
| Line 3: | Line 3: | ||
*I think 2009 was selected because it was near the end of the year and it was to give a look back on what had been done in 2009. What do you suggest then? --[[User:Edward|Edward]] 19:03, 23 March 2010 (UTC) | *I think 2009 was selected because it was near the end of the year and it was to give a look back on what had been done in 2009. What do you suggest then? --[[User:Edward|Edward]] 19:03, 23 March 2010 (UTC) | ||
:*I suggest wiping this and starting over, if we even want a featured-article process. But we'd certainly need to build the proper framework first: a rulesheet that lists what ''qualifies'' as featured article (most comprehensive, well-written, etc.), and then a simple system for others to vote on which articles they think are featured quality (just a short, sweet vote system on the talk page). Let's work on the featured article criteria first. [[User:Apostrophe|Apostrophe]] 00:46, 24 March 2010 (UTC) | :*I suggest wiping this and starting over, if we even want a featured-article process. But we'd certainly need to build the proper framework first: a rulesheet that lists what ''qualifies'' as featured article (most comprehensive, well-written, etc.), and then a simple system for others to vote on which articles they think are featured quality (just a short, sweet vote system on the talk page). Let's work on the featured article criteria first. [[User:Apostrophe|Apostrophe]] 00:46, 24 March 2010 (UTC) | ||
:*I agree. As far as making a system for choosing the article anyway. I'm in favour of keeping the Featured Articles section. For Criteria, it definitely must be relevant to whatever is happening with Chris at the time. I think that CWCipedia for example is a good choice, because there have been a lot of developments with CWCipedia recently. | |||
Revision as of 21:14, 23 March 2010
Use it or lose it
I see no place where a Featured Article structure has been implemented. It looks like Chris and anger and 2009 were randomly slapped with gold stars without any sort of process or qualifications. This is clearly not the way to do a featured-article procedure. Apostrophe 03:05, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
- I think 2009 was selected because it was near the end of the year and it was to give a look back on what had been done in 2009. What do you suggest then? --Edward 19:03, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
- I suggest wiping this and starting over, if we even want a featured-article process. But we'd certainly need to build the proper framework first: a rulesheet that lists what qualifies as featured article (most comprehensive, well-written, etc.), and then a simple system for others to vote on which articles they think are featured quality (just a short, sweet vote system on the talk page). Let's work on the featured article criteria first. Apostrophe 00:46, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
- I agree. As far as making a system for choosing the article anyway. I'm in favour of keeping the Featured Articles section. For Criteria, it definitely must be relevant to whatever is happening with Chris at the time. I think that CWCipedia for example is a good choice, because there have been a lot of developments with CWCipedia recently.